Journal of Medical Internet Research (Jun 2021)

Evaluation Framework for Successful Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Clinical Decision Support Systems: Mixed Methods Study

  • Ji, Mengting,
  • Genchev, Georgi Z,
  • Huang, Hengye,
  • Xu, Ting,
  • Lu, Hui,
  • Yu, Guangjun

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2196/25929
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 23, no. 6
p. e25929

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundClinical decision support systems are designed to utilize medical data, knowledge, and analysis engines and to generate patient-specific assessments or recommendations to health professionals in order to assist decision making. Artificial intelligence–enabled clinical decision support systems aid the decision-making process through an intelligent component. Well-defined evaluation methods are essential to ensure the seamless integration and contribution of these systems to clinical practice. ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to develop and validate a measurement instrument and test the interrelationships of evaluation variables for an artificial intelligence–enabled clinical decision support system evaluation framework. MethodsAn artificial intelligence–enabled clinical decision support system evaluation framework consisting of 6 variables was developed. A Delphi process was conducted to develop the measurement instrument items. Cognitive interviews and pretesting were performed to refine the questions. Web-based survey response data were analyzed to remove irrelevant questions from the measurement instrument, to test dimensional structure, and to assess reliability and validity. The interrelationships of relevant variables were tested and verified using path analysis, and a 28-item measurement instrument was developed. Measurement instrument survey responses were collected from 156 respondents. ResultsThe Cronbach α of the measurement instrument was 0.963, and its content validity was 0.943. Values of average variance extracted ranged from 0.582 to 0.756, and values of the heterotrait-monotrait ratio ranged from 0.376 to 0.896. The final model had a good fit (χ262=36.984; P=.08; comparative fit index 0.991; goodness-of-fit index 0.957; root mean square error of approximation 0.052; standardized root mean square residual 0.028). Variables in the final model accounted for 89% of the variance in the user acceptance dimension. ConclusionsUser acceptance is the central dimension of artificial intelligence–enabled clinical decision support system success. Acceptance was directly influenced by perceived ease of use, information quality, service quality, and perceived benefit. Acceptance was also indirectly influenced by system quality and information quality through perceived ease of use. User acceptance and perceived benefit were interrelated.