Stakeholder Perspectives on Humanistic Implementation of Computer Perception in Healthcare: A Qualitative Study

TL;DR

This study explores stakeholder perspectives on implementing computer perception technologies in healthcare, highlighting challenges and proposing personalized roadmaps to balance technological benefits with humanistic care.

Contribution

It provides the first comprehensive qualitative analysis of diverse stakeholder concerns and introduces personalized roadmaps as a practical framework for humanistic implementation.

Findings

Seven key concern domains identified: trust, relevance, utility, regulation, privacy, harms, philosophical critiques.

Stakeholders emphasize the importance of trustworthiness and data integrity.

Proposes personalized roadmaps to operationalize humanistic safeguards in CP technology deployment.

Abstract

Computer perception (CP) technologies (digital phenotyping, affective computing and related passive sensing approaches) offer unprecedented opportunities to personalize healthcare, but provoke concerns about privacy, bias and the erosion of empathic, relationship-centered practice. A comprehensive understanding of perceived risks, benefits, and implementation challenges from those who design, deploy and experience these tools in real-world settings remains elusive. This study provides the first evidence-based account of key stakeholder perspectives on the relational, technical, and governance challenges raised by the integration of CP technologies into patient care. We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 102 stakeholders: adolescent patients and their caregivers, frontline clinicians, technology developers, and ethics, legal, policy or philosophy scholars. Transcripts underwent thematic analysis by a multidisciplinary team; reliability was enhanced through double coding and consensus adjudication. Stakeholders articulated seven interlocking concern domains: (1) trustworthiness and data integrity; (2) patient-specific relevance; (3) utility and workflow integration; (4) regulation and governance; (5) privacy and data protection; (6) direct and indirect patient harms; and (7) philosophical critiques of reductionism. To operationalize humanistic safeguards, we propose "personalized roadmaps": co-designed plans that predetermine which metrics will be monitored, how and when feedback is shared, thresholds for clinical action, and procedures for reconciling discrepancies between algorithmic inferences and lived experience. By translating these insights into personalized roadmaps, we offer a practical framework for developers, clinicians and policymakers seeking to harness continuous behavioral data while preserving the humanistic core of care.