I spotted something that might be a pretty big problem for your findings, and I wanted to get your thoughts on it.
It’s about their participant sampling criteria. To be included, participants needed either:
– A minimum of 6 months of experience in an AI-implemented healthcare setting, OR
– 15 days of training in such a setting, OR
– Attendance at a minimum of three conferences related to AI in healthcare.
My question is: Does this criteria actually guarantee that the participants have meaningful, hands-on experience with AI systems that could replace them?
Looking at Table 1, many participants list experiences like “Electronic health records (EHR) management” or “Introduction to AI applications in medical technology.” These sound like basic digital tools or introductory concepts, not the kind of advanced, autonomous AI (like diagnostic algorithms or robotic surgeons) that the study is asking about, the kind that would actually cause “replacement” fears.
If most participants haven’t actually worked alongside the type of AI they are being asked to fear, then aren’t their concerns more about a vague, hypothetical future rather than a reaction to a real-world threat? This feels like it could weaken the core premise of the paper, which is to investigate concerns “about the potential replacement of medical professionals by Artificial Intelligence.” If the “AI” they’ve encountered is just a digital records system, doesn’t that compromise the validity of their fears about being replaced?
What do you think? Could this be a fundamental flaw in how they defined their sample? I’m wondering if this means their results reflect general anxiety about technology rather than specific, informed concerns about job replacement by advanced AI.