Back

Clinician Perspectives on Automated Facial Analysis for Pain Assessment: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Physicians, Advanced Practice Providers, and Nurses

Mullins, C. S.; Espelien, C.; Gurka, M.; Chernyavskiy, P.

2026-09-23 pain medicine
10.64898/2026.09.21.26363597 medRxiv
Show abstract

Pain assessment remains challenging in clinical practice. Automated pain assessment using artificial intelligence (AI) and facial expression analysis has emerged as a potential approach to support more objective and continuous pain monitoring, particularly for patients who are unable to communicate effectively. However, successful implementation depends on clinician acceptance. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), and nurses at a tertiary academic medical center to evaluate current pain assessment practices and perceptions of a facial-analysis-based pain assessment system. Eighty-seven eligible clinicians participated. For current assessment practices, clinicians commonly relied on observational indicators of pain, including vital signs (88.5%), physical examination findings (85.1%), and facial expressions (79.3%). Attitudes toward automated pain assessment were generally neutral to positive. Half of respondents agreed that such a system would be useful for monitoring patients over time (50.6%), and many perceived value for nonverbal patients (86.5%), patients with dementia or cognitive impairment (78.4%), and patients with language barriers (62.2%). Most clinicians reported requiring high levels of accuracy before routine use, with nearly 60% requiring at least 90% accuracy. Key concerns included alert fatigue and unequal performance across patient populations. These findings suggest clinicians view automated facial-analysis systems as potentially valuable adjuncts for pain monitoring, particularly in communication-impaired populations, while emphasizing the importance of accuracy, fairness, explainability, and workflow integration during system development and implementation.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.