OBJECTIVES: We analyzed trends in adoption of advanced patient engagement and clinical data analytics functionalities among critical access hospitals (CAHs) and non-CAHs to assess how historical gaps have changed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used 2014, 2018, and 2023 data from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey IT Supplement to measure differences in adoption rates (ie, the "adoption gap") of patient engagement and clinical data analytics functionalities across CAHs and non-CAHs. We measured changes over time in CAH and non-CAH adoption of 6 "core" clinical data analytics functionalities, 5 "core" patient engagement functionalities, 5 new patient engagement functionalities, and 3 bulk data export use cases. We constructed 2 composite measures for core functionalities and analyzed adoption for other functionalities individually. RESULTS: Core functionality adoption increased from 21% of CAHs in 2014 to 56% in 2023 for clinical data analytics and 18% to 49% for patient engagement. The CAH adoption gap in both domains narrowed from 2018 to 2023 (both P < .01). More than 90% of all hospitals had adopted viewing and downloading electronic data and clinical notes by 2023. The largest CAH adoption gaps in 2023 were for Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) bulk export use cases (eg, analytics and reporting: 63% of CAHs, 81% of non-CAHs, P < .001). DISCUSSION: Adoption of advanced electronic health record functionalities has increased for CAHs and non-CAHs, and some adoption gaps have been closed since 2018. However, CAHs may continue to struggle with clinical data analytics and FHIR-based functionalities. CONCLUSION: Some crucial patient engagement functionalities have reached near-universal adoption; however, policymakers should consider programs to support CAHs in closing remaining adoption gaps.

OBJECTIVES: Although efforts to effectively govern AI continue to develop, relatively little work has been done to systematically measure and include patient perspectives or expectations of AI in governance. This analysis is designed to understand patient expectations of healthcare AI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional nationally representative survey of US adults fielded from June to July of 2023. A total of 2039 participants completed the survey and cross-sectional population weights were applied to produce national estimates. RESULTS: Among US adults, 19.55% expect AI to improve their relationship with their doctor, while 19.4% expect it to increase affordability and 30.28% expect it will improve their access to care. Trust in providers and the healthcare system are positively associated with expectations of AI when controlling for demographic factors, general attitudes toward technology, and other healthcare-related variables. DISCUSSION: US adults generally have low expectations of benefit from AI in healthcare, but those with higher trust in their providers and health systems are more likely to expect to benefit from AI. CONCLUSION: Trust and provider relationships should be key considerations for health systems as they create their AI governance processes and communicate with patients about AI tools. Evidence of patient benefit should be prioritized to preserve or promote trust.

OBJECTIVE: Understand public comfort with the use of different data types for predictive models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from a national survey of US adults (n = 1436) fielded from November to December 2021. For three categories of data (identified using factor analysis), we use descriptive statistics to capture comfort level. RESULTS: Public comfort with data use for prediction is low. For 13 of 15 data types, most respondents were uncomfortable with that data being used for prediction. In factor analysis, 15 types of data grouped into three categories based on public comfort: (1) personal characteristic data, (2) health-related data, and (3) sensitive data. Mean comfort was highest for health-related data (2.45, SD 0.84, range 1-4), followed by personal characteristic data (2.36, SD 0.94), and sensitive data (1.88, SD 0.77). Across these categories, we observe a statistically significant positive relationship between trust in health systems' use of patient information and comfort with data use for prediction. DISCUSSION: Although public trust is recognized as important for the sustainable expansion of predictive tools, current policy does not reflect public concerns. Low comfort with data use for prediction should be addressed in order to prevent potential negative impacts on trust in healthcare. CONCLUSION: Our results provide empirical evidence on public perspectives, which are important for shaping the use of predictive models. Findings demonstrate a need for realignment of policy around the sensitivity of non-clinical data categories.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether comfort with the use of ChatGPT in society differs from comfort with other uses of AI in society and to identify whether this comfort and other patient characteristics such as trust, privacy concerns, respect, and tech-savviness are associated with expected benefit of the use of ChatGPT for improving health. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed an original survey of U.S. adults using the NORC AmeriSpeak Panel (n = 1787). We conducted paired t-tests to assess differences in comfort with AI applications. We conducted weighted univariable regression and 2 weighted logistic regression models to identify predictors of expected benefit with and without accounting for trust in the health system. RESULTS: Comfort with the use of ChatGPT in society is relatively low and different from other, common uses of AI. Comfort was highly associated with expecting benefit. Other statistically significant factors in multivariable analysis (not including system trust) included feeling respected and low privacy concerns. Females, younger adults, and those with higher levels of education were less likely to expect benefits in models with and without system trust, which was positively associated with expecting benefits (P = 1.6 × 10-11). Tech-savviness was not associated with the outcome. DISCUSSION: Understanding the impact of large language models (LLMs) from the patient perspective is critical to ensuring that expectations align with performance as a form of calibrated trust that acknowledges the dynamic nature of trust. CONCLUSION: Including measures of system trust in evaluating LLMs could capture a range of issues critical for ensuring patient acceptance of this technological innovation.

Health organizations and systems rely on increasingly sophisticated informatics infrastructure. Without anti-racist expertise, the field risks reifying and entrenching racism in information systems. We consider ways the informatics field can recognize institutional, systemic, and structural racism and propose the use of the Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) to mitigate and dismantle racism in digital forms. We enumerate guiding questions for stakeholders along with a PHCRP-Informatics framework. By focusing on (1) critical self-reflection, (2) following the expertise of well-established scholars of racism, (3) centering the voices of affected individuals and communities, and (4) critically evaluating practice resulting from informatics systems, stakeholders can work to minimize the impacts of racism. Informatics, informed and guided by this proposed framework, will help realize the vision of health systems that are more fair, just, and equitable.

OBJECTIVE: Although patient generated health data (PGHD) has stimulated excitement about its potential to increase patient engagement and to offer clinicians new insights into patient health status, we know little about these efforts at scale and whether they align with patient preferences. This study sought to characterize provider-led PGHD approaches, assess whether they aligned with patient preferences, and identify challenges to scale and impact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We interviewed leaders from a geographically diverse set of health systems (n = 6), leaders from large electronic health record vendors (n = 3), and leaders from vendors providing PGHD solutions to health systems (n = 3). Next, we interviewed patients with 1 or more chronic conditions (n = 10), half of whom had PGHD experience. We conducted content analysis to characterize health system PGHD approaches, assess alignment with patient preferences, and identify challenges. RESULTS: In this study, 3 primary approaches were identified, and each was designed to support collection of a different type of PGHD: 1) health history, 2) validated questionnaires and surveys, and 3) biometric and health activity. Whereas patient preferences aligned with health system approaches, patients raised concerns about data security and the value of reporting. Health systems cited challenges related to lack of reimbursement, data quality, and clinical usefulness of PGHD. DISCUSSION: Despite a federal policy focus on PGHD, it is not yet being pursued at scale. Whereas many barriers contribute to this narrow pursuit, uncertainty around the value of PGHD, from both patients and providers, is a primary inhibitor. CONCLUSION: Our results reveal a fairly narrow set of approaches to PGHD currently pursued by health systems at scale.