Acceptance of Medical Artificial Intelligence in Skin Cancer Screening: Choice-Based Conjoint Survey.

BACKGROUND: There is great interest in using artificial intelligence (AI) to screen for skin cancer. This is fueled by a rising incidence of skin cancer and an increasing scarcity of trained dermatologists. AI systems capable of identifying melanoma could save lives, enable immediate access to screenings, and reduce unnecessary care and health care costs. While such AI-based systems are useful from a public health perspective, past research has shown that individual patients are very hesitant about being examined by an AI system.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was two-fold: (1) to determine the relative importance of the provider (in-person physician, physician via teledermatology, AI, personalized AI), costs of screening (free, 10€, 25€, 40€; 1€=US $1.09), and waiting time (immediate, 1 day, 1 week, 4 weeks) as attributes contributing to patients' choices of a particular mode of skin cancer screening; and (2) to investigate whether sociodemographic characteristics, especially age, were systematically related to participants' individual choices.

METHODS: A choice-based conjoint analysis was used to examine the acceptance of medical AI for a skin cancer screening from the patient's perspective. Participants responded to 12 choice sets, each containing three screening variants, where each variant was described through the attributes of provider, costs, and waiting time. Furthermore, the impacts of sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, income, job status, and educational background) on the choices were assessed.

RESULTS: Among the 383 clicks on the survey link, a total of 126 (32.9%) respondents completed the online survey. The conjoint analysis showed that the three attributes had more or less equal importance in contributing to the participants' choices, with provider being the most important attribute. Inspecting the individual part-worths of conjoint attributes showed that treatment by a physician was the most preferred modality, followed by electronic consultation with a physician and personalized AI; the lowest scores were found for the three AI levels. Concerning the relationship between sociodemographic characteristics and relative importance, only age showed a significant positive association to the importance of the attribute provider (r=0.21, P=.02), in which younger participants put less importance on the provider than older participants. All other correlations were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the growing body of research using choice-based experiments to investigate the acceptance of AI in health contexts. Future studies are needed to explore the reasons why AI is accepted or rejected and whether sociodemographic characteristics are associated with this decision.