Understanding Perspectives of Patients, Caregivers and Clinicians towards Emerging Collaborative-decision Making Technologies

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into healthcare to support diagnostics, decision-making, and administrative processes. However, the successful implementation of AI depends not only on technical performance but also on public perceptions of its helpfulness, riskiness, and fairness. This study examines public perceptions of automated decision-making (ADM) in healthcare. Data were drawn from the first wave of an ongoing longitudinal survey panel. The final sample consisted of 3,915 respondents and was analyzed with structural equation modeling. Perceptions of ADM in healthcare as helpful, risky, and fair were treated as the dependent variables. AI literacy, familiarity with different forms of AI, confidence in clinicians' ability to distinguish AI- from human-generated content, use of conversational agents for health information, and use of traditional digital health information sources were included as exogenous. Greater familiarity with different forms of AI, higher confidence in the clinician's ability to recognize AI-generated content, and use of conversational agents for health information were associated with greater perceived helpfulness. Use of conversational agents was associated with lower perceived risk, whereas greater familiarity with AI and greater reliance on traditional health information sources were associated with higher perceived risk. Perceptions of ADM as fair were most strongly predicted by confidence in the clinician's ability, with additional small positive associations with AI familiarity, AI literacy, and use of conversational agents. Public perceptions of ADM in healthcare are shaped by technological familiarity, use of conversational agents, and confidence in human oversight. Overall, ADM's perceived helpfulness and fairness are driven more by trust in healthcare professionals than by trust in the technology itself.

AI applications are increasingly being introduced into digital health. While technical performance has advanced rapidly, successful deployment mainly depends on consumer attitudes, especially to patient-facing applications. However, most existing research examines consumer attitudes towards healthcare AI at an abstract level rather than in response to concrete artefacts. We report a mixed-methods survey study in Australia (N=275) examining consumer readiness, acceptance, trust, and risk perceptions of healthcare AI, combined with a scenario-based evaluation of an AI-generated versus clinician-written consultation summary. Participants expressed moderate optimism and strong perceived usefulness and ease of use, but also substantial concerns about accuracy, safety, and data use. In the scenario task, the AI-generated summary was strongly preferred for quality, empathy, and overall usefulness, yet identification of the AI summary was near chance. Findings show that consumers judge AI through concrete communication quality and visible human governance, underscoring the need for clinically supervised deployment frameworks beyond technical performance alone.

Medical AI has shifted from reasoning to agentic AI, a new paradigm that autonomously invokes external tools during reasoning, rendering intermediate reasoning steps and tool outputs transparent to users. Although proven to outperform previous models, physician trust in agentic AI remains largely unexplored. To address this, three physicians evaluated 315 multimodal clinical cases quantifying both process-oriented cognitive trust and outcome-oriented behavioral reliance. Comparing agentic AI against non-agentic baselines, physicians exhibited significantly higher cognitive and behavioral trust for the agentic model (P < 0.001). Specifically, on treatment planning tasks, physicians trusted the agentic reasoning most, preferring it in 89.57% of cases. Furthermore, process-oriented cognitive trust is significantly associated with outcome-oriented behavioral reliance (P < 0.001). However, measurable over-reliance on incorrect agentic outputs still exists, highlighting the inherent limitations of decision-logic transparency alone and underscoring the continuous need for rigorous clinician oversight.