Chinese Oncologists’ Perspectives on Integrating AI into Clinical Practice: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Abstract

Background The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought significant interest to its potential applications in oncology. Although AI-powered tools are already being implemented in some Chinese hospitals, their integration into clinical practice raises several concerns for Chinese oncologists. Objective This study aims to explore the concerns of Chinese oncologists regarding the integration of AI into clinical practice and to identify the factors influencing these concerns. Methods A total of 228 Chinese oncologists participated in a cross-sectional web-based survey from April to June in 2023 in mainland China. The survey gauged their worries about AI with multiple-choice questions. The survey evaluated their views on the statements of “The impact of AI on the doctor-patient relationship” and “AI will replace doctors.” The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and variate analyses were used to find correlations between the oncologists’ backgrounds and their concerns. Results The study revealed that the most prominent concerns were the potential for AI to mislead diagnosis and treatment (163/228, 71.5%); an overreliance on AI (162/228, 71%); data and algorithm bias (123/228, 54%); issues with data security and patient privacy (123/228, 54%); and a lag in the adaptation of laws, regulations, and policies in keeping up with AI’s development (115/228, 50.4%). Oncologists with a bachelor’s degree expressed heightened concerns related to data and algorithm bias (34/49, 69%; P=.03) and the lagging nature of legal, regulatory, and policy issues (32/49, 65%; P=.046). Regarding AI’s impact on doctor-patient relationships, 53.1% (121/228) saw a positive impact, whereas 35.5% (81/228) found it difficult to judge, 9.2% (21/228) feared increased disputes, and 2.2% (5/228) believed that there is no impact. Although sex differences were not significant (P=.08), perceptions varied—male oncologists tended to be more positive than female oncologists (74/135, 54.8% vs 47/93, 50%). Oncologists with a bachelor’s degree (26/49, 53%; P=.03) and experienced clinicians (≥21 years; 28/56, 50%; P=.054). found it the hardest to judge. Those with IT experience were significantly more positive (25/35, 71%) than those without (96/193, 49.7%; P=.02). Opinions regarding the possibility of AI replacing doctors were diverse, with 23.2% (53/228) strongly disagreeing, 14% (32/228) disagreeing, 29.8% (68/228) being neutral, 16.2% (37/228) agreeing, and 16.7% (38/228) strongly agreeing. There were no significant correlations with demographic and professional factors (all P>.05). Conclusions Addressing oncologists’ concerns about AI requires collaborative efforts from policy makers, developers, health care professionals, and legal experts. Emphasizing transparency, human-centered design, bias mitigation, and education about AI’s potential and limitations is crucial. Through close collaboration and a multidisciplinary strategy, AI can be effectively integrated into oncology, balancing benefits with ethical considerations and enhancing patient care.