Table 5. The strength of respondents’ approval (ranging from 0 for no approval to 10 for the strongest approval) of coverage of AI technology by the National Health Insurance, categorized according to the value elements provided by AI.
| Stakeholder group | Value element provided by AI with proven positive effects or benefits | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical outcomes | P * | Economic aspects | P * | Organizational aspects | P * | Non-clinical PCOs | |
| Patient/patient representative (n = 44) | 7.6 ± 2.4 | < 0.001 | 6.1 ± 3.3 | 0.425 | 5.7 ± 3.2 | 1.000 | 5.7 ± 3.6 |
| Industry/developer (n = 64) | 7.0 ± 2.8 | 0.001 | 6.4 ± 2.7 | 0.029 | 5.7 ± 3.3 | 0.454 | 5.3 ± 3.2 |
| Medical practitioner/doctor (n = 60) | 7.2 ± 2.5 | < 0.001 | 5.9 ± 3.1 | 0.009 | 6.4 ± 3.1 | 0.006 | 4.6 ± 3.7 |
| Government health personnel† (n = 32) | 7.0 ± 3.0 | 0.007 | 5.4 ± 3.5 | 0.566 | 5.0 ± 3.5 | 0.919 | 5.0 ± 3.6 |
| All (n = 200) | 7.2 ± 2.7 | < 0.001 | 6.0 ± 3.1 | < 0.001 | 5.8 ± 3.2 | 0.036 | 5.1 ± 3.5 |
Data are presented as the mean weight ± standard deviation.
*Comparison with non-clinical PCOs, †Encompassing experts in government health policy/administration from the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, or Health Insurance and Review Assessment Service.
AI = artificial intelligence, PCO = patient-centered outcome