Medical Expert Systems – A Study of Trust and Acceptance by Healthcare Stakeholders

  • Ioannis VourgidisEmail author
  • Shadreck Joseph Mafuma
  • Paul WilsonEmail author
  • Jenny CarterEmail author
  • Georgina Cosma
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 840)


The increasing prevalence of complex technology in the form of medical expert systems in the healthcare sector is presenting challenging opportunities to clinicians in their quest to improve patients’ health outcomes. Medical expert systems have brought measurable improvements to the healthcare outcomes for some patients. This paper highlights the importance of trust and acceptance in the healthcare industry amongst receivers of the care as well as other stakeholders and between large healthcare organizations. Studies show that current conceptual trust models, which are being used to measure the degree of trust relationships in different healthcare settings, cannot be easily evaluated because of the resistance of organizational and social changes which are to be implemented. Research findings also suggest that the use of medical expert systems do not automatically guarantee improved patient healthcare outcomes. Furthermore, during the building of predictive and diagnostic expert medical systems, studies recommend the use of algorithms which can deal with noisy and imprecise data which is typical in healthcare data. Such algorithms include fuzzy rule based systems.


Healthcare NHS Medical expert systems Trust Acceptance Artificial intelligence Systematic literature review 


  1. 1.
    Alaszewski, A.: Risk, trust and health. Health Risk Soc. 5(3), 235–239 (2003). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jones, J., Barry, M.M.: Developing a scale to measure trust in health promotion partnerships. Health Promot. Int. 26(4), 484–491 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ward, P.R., et al.: A qualitative study of patient (dis)trust in public and private hospitals: the importance of choice and pragmatic acceptance for trust considerations in South Australia. BMC Health Serv. Res. 15(1), 297 (2015). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Turban, E., Aronson, J.E.: Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Musen, M.A., Shahar, Y., Shortliffe, E.H.: Clinical decision-support systems. In: Biomedical Informatics Computer Applications in Health Care and Biomedicine, 3rd edn., pp. 698–736. Springer, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Musen, M.A., Middleton, B., Greenes, R.A.: Clinical decision-support systems. In: Shortliffe, E.H., Cimino, J.J. (eds.) Biomedical Informatics: Computer Applications in Health Care and Biomedicine, pp. 643–674. Springer, London (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alder, H., et al.: Computer-based diagnostic expert systems in rheumatology: where do we stand in 2014? Int. J. Rheumatol. (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walton, R.: An evaluation of CAPSULE, a computer system giving advice to general practitioners about prescribing drugs. J. Innov. Health Inform. [S.l.], 2–7 (1996). ISSN 2058-4563Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Darlington, K.W.: Designing for explanation in health care applications of expert systems. SAGE Open 1(1) (2011). 2158244011408618Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Metaxiotis, K., Psarras, J.: Expert systems in business: applications and future directions for the operations researcher. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 103(5), 361–368 (2003). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grol, R., Grimshaw, J.: From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 362(9391), 1225–1230 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ax, G., et al.: Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 293(10), 1223–1238 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castaneda, C., et al.: Clinical decision support systems for improving diagnostic accuracy and achieving precision medicine. J. Clin. Bioinform. 5(1), 4 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Madkour, M.A., Roushdy, M.: Methodology for medical diagnosis based on fuzzy logic. In: Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Soft Computing, vol. 2, pp. 1–14 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stone, D.J., Csete, M.: Actuating critical care therapeutics. J. Crit. Care 35, 90–95 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Benson, T.: SNOMED CT. In: Benson, T. (ed.) Principles of Health Interoperability HL7 and SNOMED, pp. 189–215 (2010).
  18. 18.
    Appleby, J., Harrison, A., Devlin, N.: What Is the Real Cost of More Patient Choice?. King’s Fund, London (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leroy, G., Chen, H.: Introduction to the special issue on decision support in medicine. Decis. Support Syst. 43(4), 1203–1206 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arnold, V., Clark, N., Collier, P.A., Leech, S.A., Sutton, S.G.: The differential use and effect of knowledge-based system explanations in novice and expert judgement decisions. MIS Q. 30(1), 79–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 709–734 (1995). Mayer, R.C., Gavin, M.B.: Trust (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewicki, R.J., Bunker, B.B.: Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. Trust Organ. Front. Theory Res. 114–139 (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hall, G., Longman, J.: The Postgraduate Companion. Sage Publications, London (2008). Chapters 4–7 EdsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mechanic, D., Meyer, S.: Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness. Soc. Sci. Med. 51(5), 657–668 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Calnan, M., Rowe, R.: Researching trust relations in health care: conceptual and methodological challenges – an introduction. J. Health Organ. Manag. 20(5), 349–358 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tarrant, C., Stokes, T., Baker, R.: Factors associated with patients’ trust in their general practitioner: a cross-sectional survey. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 53(495), 798–800 (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mainous III, A.G., Baker, R., Love, M.M., Pereira Gray, D., Gill, J.M.: Continuity of care and trust in one’s physician: evidence from primary care in the United States and the United Kingdom. Fam. Med. 33, 22–27 (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Calnan, M.W., Sanford, E.: Public trust in health care: the system or the doctor? BMJ Qual. Safety 13(2), 92–97 (2004). Scholar
  30. 30.
    Harrison, S., Smith, C.: Neo-bureaucracy and public management: the case of medicine in the national health service. Competition Change 7(4), 243–254 (2003). Scholar
  31. 31.
    Khajouei, R., Jaspers, M.W.M.: The impact of CPOE medication systems’ design aspects on usability, workflow and medication orders a systematic review. Methods Inf. Med. 49(1), 3–19 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Larson, H.J., et al.: Addressing the vaccine confidence gap. Lancet 378(9790), 526–535 (2011). Scholar
  33. 33.
    Systems, B.I.: A fuzzy expert system for response determining diagnosis and management movement impairments syndrome Fatemeh Mohammadi Amiri. Ameneh Khadivar Alireza Dolatkhah 24(1), 31–50 (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lepage, E., et al.: ILIAD: an expert system for diagnostic assistance and teaching: implementation in France. In: Adlassnig, K.-P., et al. (eds.) Medical Informatics Europe 1991, pp. 629–633. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mackin, N., Stephens, C.D.: Development and testing of a fuzzy expert system - an example in orthodontics. In: Proceedings of Fuzzy Logic: Applications and Future Directions, pp. 61–71. Unicom Seminars Ltd, Uxbridge, Middlesex (1997)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nohria, R.: Medical expert system-A comprehensive review. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 130(7), 975–8887 (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hunt, D.L., et al.: Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes - a systematic review. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280(15), 1339 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Edwards, G., Compton, P., Malor, R., Srinivasan, A., Lazarus, L.: PEIRS: a pathologist maintained expert system for the interpretation of chemical pathology reports. Pathology 25, 27–34 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    Safran, D.G., et al.: Linking primary care performance to outcomes of care. J. Family Pract. 47, 213–220 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.De Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK
  2. 2.Huddersfield UniversityHuddersfieldUK
  3. 3.Nottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations