Towards HCXAI: Explainability Preferences of Healthcare Professionals

This study examined how healthcare professionals (HCP) perceive and trust AI in clinical settings, and what kinds of explanations they need to use it effectively. Using interviews with six HCPsand a questionnaire (N=41), the findings show that trust was higher for administrative tasks and lower for direct clinical decisions, regardless of their prior AI or clinical experience or AI literacy. Clinical validation and algorithmic bias ranked above explainability as trust factors, indicating that explainability is not a primary trust-building mechanism. However, HCP consistently demanded explanations as a tool to support their own clinical reasoning, preferring to receive them across all clinical contexts rather than only under disagreement with the system, and valued grounding in medical evidence and consistency with clinical protocols over clarity or simplicity. These findings argue for an HCXAI design approach that treats explainability as a critical-reasoning tool rather than a primary trust mechanism.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
AI
Published
2026-07-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/ai7070247
Primary Topic
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Towards HCXAI: Explainability Preferences of Healthcare Professionals

Marisol Gómez, Angela Bernardini, Mishell Cadena-Yanez
AI
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
article

Towards HCXAI: Explainability Preferences of Healthcare Professionals

Marisol Gómez, Angela Bernardini, Mishell Cadena-Yanez
article en

Abstract

This study examined how healthcare professionals (HCP) perceive and trust AI in clinical settings, and what kinds of explanations they need to use it effectively. Using interviews with six HCPsand a questionnaire (N=41), the findings show that trust was higher for administrative tasks and lower for direct clinical decisions, regardless of their prior AI or clinical experience or AI literacy. Clinical validation and algorithmic bias ranked above explainability as trust factors, indicating that explainability is not a primary trust-building mechanism. However, HCP consistently demanded explanations as a tool to support their own clinical reasoning, preferring to receive them across all clinical contexts rather than only under disagreement with the system, and valued grounding in medical evidence and consistency with clinical protocols over clarity or simplicity. These findings argue for an HCXAI design approach that treats explainability as a critical-reasoning tool rather than a primary trust mechanism.

AIVol. 7(7)
Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA) (ES), Asociación de la Industria Navarra (ES)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Towards HCXAI: Explainability Preferences of Healthcare Professionals — Marisol Gómez, Angela Bernardini, et al. · AI (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS