Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of Risks in the Development of Responsible Artificial Intelligence in the Digital Healthcare Domain

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the healthcare field is gaining popularity. However, it also raises some concerns related to privacy and ethical aspects that require the development of a responsible AI framework. The principle of responsible AI states that artificial intelligence-based systems should be considered a part of composite societal and technological systems. This study attempts to establish whether AI risks in digital healthcare are positively associated with responsible AI. The moderating effect of perceived trust and perceived privacy risks is also examined. The theoretical model was based on perceived risk theory. Perceived risk theory is important in the context of this study, as risks related to uneasiness and uncertainty can be expected in the development of responsible AI due to the volatile nature of intelligent applications. Our research provides some interesting findings which are presented in the discussion section.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data will provided on request.

References

  • Ahmadi, R., & Shybt, S. A. H. (2020). Study of artificial neural networks in information security risk assessment. Journal of Management and Accounting Studies, 8(2), 1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alahakoon, D., Nawaratne, R., Xu, Y., De Silva, D., Sivarajah, U., & Gupta, B. (2020). Self-building artificial intelligence and machine learning to empower big data analytics in smart cities. Information Systems Frontiers, August, 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10056-x

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrieta, A. B., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., & Herrera, F., …. (2020). Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion, 58, 82–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2009). On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Journal of Risk Research, 12(1), 1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bag, S., Gupta, S., & Luo, Z. (2020). Examining the role of logistics 4.0 enabled dynamic capabilities on firm performance. International Journal of Logistics Management, 31(3), 607–628

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking. Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior. D. F. Cox. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press. pp. 389-398.

  • Boddington, P. (2017). Introduction: artificial intelligence and ethics. In: Towards a code of ethics for artificial intelligence. artificial intelligence: foundations, theory, and algorithms. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60648-4_1

  • Borges, A. F., Laurindo, F. J., Spínola, M. M., Gonçalves, R. F., & Mattos, C. A. (2020). The strategic use of artificial intelligence in the digital era: Systematic literature review and future research directions. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 102225

  • Brundage, M. (2016). Artificial intelligence and responsible innovation. Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence (pp. 543–554). Springer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cena, F., Console, L., Matassa, A., & Torre, I. (2019). Multi-dimensional intelligence in smart physical objects. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(2), 383-404

  • Chang, A. (2020). The role of artificial intelligence in digital health. Digital health entrepreneurship (pp. 71–81). Springer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, S. (2020). AI strategy of India: policy framework, adoption challenges and actions for government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 14(5), 757–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, C. M., Wang, E. T., Fang, Y. H., & Huang, H. Y. (2014). Understanding customers’ repeat purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce: the roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value and perceived risk. Information Systems Journal, 24(1), 85–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopdar, P. K., & Sivakumar, V. J. (2019). Understanding continuance usage of mobile shopping applications in India: the role of espoused cultural values and perceived risk. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(1), 42–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conchar, M. P., Zinkhan, G. M., Peters, C., & Olavarrieta, S. (2004). An integrated framework for the conceptualization of consumers’ perceived-risk processing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 418–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T., & Kalakota, R. (2019). The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future Healthcare Journal, 6(2), 94–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dignum, V. (2017). Responsible artificial intelligence: Designing AI for human values. ITU Journal, ICT Discoveries, 1, 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Dignum, V. (2019). Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI in a Responsible Way. Springer Nature

  • Dillman, D. A. (2011). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method–2007 Update with new Internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide. Wiley

  • Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Blome, C., & Papadopoulos, T. (2019). Big data and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: integrating institutional theory, resource based view and big data culture. British Journal of Management, 30(2), 341–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C., & Henke, M. (2015). The performance impact of supply chain agility and supply chain adaptability: the moderating effect of product complexity. International Journal of Production Research, 53(10), 3028–3046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foehr, J., & Germelmann, C. C. (2020). Alexa, can I trust you? Exploring consumer paths to trust in smart voice-interaction technologies. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5(2), 181–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, S. M., & Shi, B. (2003). Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet shopping. Journal of Business Research, 56(11), 867–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, D., Hoffmann, A. L., & Stark, L. (2019). Better, nicer, clearer, fairer: A critical assessment of the movement for ethical artificial intelligence and machine learning. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences

  • Grover, P., Kar, A. K., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020). Understanding artificial intelligence adoption in operations management: insights from the review of academic literature and social media discussions. Annals of Operations Research, 1–37

  • Guide, V. D. R., & Ketokivi, M. (2015). Notes from the Editors: Redefining some methodological criteria for the journal. Journal of Operations Management, 37, v-viii. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(15)00056-X

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1987). Multivariate data analysis. Macmillan

  • Hair, J. F. Jr, Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, S., Song, R., & Chaudhry, S. S. (2014). Service-oriented intelligent group decision support system: application in transportation management. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(5), 939–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hengstler, M., Enkel, E., & Duelli, S. (2016). Applied artificial intelligence and trust—The case of autonomous vehicles and medical assistance devices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 105, 105–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2017). Consumer and object experience in the Internet of Things: An assemblage theory approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1178–1204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holak, S. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (1990). Purchase intentions and the dimensions of innovation: An exploratory model. Journal of Product Innovation Management: an international publication of the product development & management association, 7(1), 59–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, S. C., McIntosh, S., Sobolevsky, S., & Hung, P. C. (2017). Big data analytics and business intelligence in industry. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(6), 1229–1232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, J. H., Mathiassen, L., & Nielsen, P. A. (2004). Managing risk in software process improvement: An action research approach. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 395-433

  • Johnson, M., Albizri, A., & Harfouche, A. (2021). Responsible artificial intelligence in healthcare: Predicting and preventing insurance claim denials for economic and social wellbeing. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–17

  • Kar, A. K., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020). Theory building with big data-driven research–Moving away from the “What” towards the “Why”. International Journal of Information Management, 54, 102205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesharwani, A., & Singh Bisht, S. (2012). The impact of trust and perceived risk on internet banking adoption in India: An extension of technology acceptance model. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 30(4), 303–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decision Support Systems, 44(2), 544–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., & Lennon, S. J. (2013). Effects of reputation and website quality on online consumers’ emotion, perceived risk and purchase intention. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 7(1), 33–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full colinearity assessment approach. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kock, N. (2017). WarpPLS User Manual: Version 6.0. Script Warp Systems

  • Kock, N., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(7), 546–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, 122–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Anand, A. (2021). Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) for value formation and market performance in healthcare: the mediating role of patient’s cognitive engagement. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10136-6

  • Lee, C. S., Wang, M. H., Chaslot, G., Hoock, J. B., Rimmel, A., Teytaud, O., & Hong, T. P. (2009). The computational intelligence of MoGo revealed in Taiwan’s computer Go tournaments. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, 1(1), 73–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Davari, H., Singh, J., & Pandhare, V. (2018). Industrial Artificial Intelligence for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters, 18, 20–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Z., & Bai, X. (2010). Influences of perceived risk and system usability on the adoption of mobile banking service. In International Symposium on Computer Science and Computational Technology (ISCSCT) (3, pp. 051–054)

  • Lim, N. (2003). Consumers’ perceived risk: sources versus consequences. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2(3), 216–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, P., Abney, K., & Jenkins, R. (Eds.). (2017). Robot ethics 2.0: From autonomous cars to artificial intelligence. Oxford University Press

  • Lu, H., Li, Y., Chen, M., Kim, H., & Serikawa, S. (2018). Brain intelligence: go beyond artificial intelligence. Mobile Networks and Applications, 23(2), 368–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukić, J., Radenković, M., Despotović-Zrakić, M., Labus, A., & Bogdanović, Z. (2017). Supply chain intelligence for electricity markets: A smart grid perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(1), 91–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luxton, D. D. (2014). Artificial intelligence in psychological practice: Current and future applications and implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(5), 332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336–355

  • Mann, B. J. S., & Sahni, S. K. (2013). Role of trust and customer loyalty in reducing perceived security risk in internet banking. International Journal of Electronic Business, 10(4), 331–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. (2019). Don’t trust AI until we build systems that earn trust. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/12/18/dont-trust-ai-until-we-build-systems-that-earn-trust. Accessed 5 July 2021 

  • McLean, G., & Osei-Frimpong, K. (2019). Hey Alexa… examine the variables influencing the use of artificial intelligent in‐home voice assistants. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 28–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T. (2019). Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence, 267, 1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mir, U. B., Sharma, S., Kar, A. K., & Gupta, M. P. (2020). Critical success factors for integrating artificial intelligence and robotics. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 22(4), 307–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. S., Michalski, J. G., & Carbonell, T. M. (2013). An artificial intelligence approach. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Mothersbaugh, D. L., Foxx, W. K., Beatty, S. E., & Wang, S. (2012). Disclosure antecedents in an online service context: The role of sensitivity of information. Journal of Service Research, 15(1), 76–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee, S. (2020). Emerging Frontiers in smart environment and healthcare–A vision. Information Systems Frontiers, 22(1), 23–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neill, D. B. (2012). New directions in artificial intelligence for public health surveillance. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 27(1), 56–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nepomuceno, M. V., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2014). How to reduce perceived risk when buying online: The interactions between intangibility, product knowledge, brand familiarity, privacy and security concerns. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(4), 619–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nogueira, J. C., & Bhattacharya, S. (2000). A risk assessment model for software prototyping projects. Proceedings. 11th International Workshop on Rapid System Prototyping, 2000. RSP 2000 (pp. 28–33). IEEE

  • Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 105-136

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramesh, R., & Rao, H. R. (2003). Foreword: Featured sections—Business applications of uncertain reasoning and informatics support for medical research. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(4), 339–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigby, M. J. (2019). Ethical dimensions of using artificial intelligence in health care. AMA Journal of Ethics, 21(2), 121–124

  • Rossi, F. (2019). Building trust in artificial intelligence. https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/building-trust-artificial-intelligence. Accessed 5 July 2021

  • Roy, S. K., Balaji, M. S., Kesharwani, A., & Sekhon, H. (2017). Predicting Internet banking adoption in India: a perceived risk perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 25(5–6), 418–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S., Hauert, S., Altman, R., & Veloso, M. (2015). Ethics of artificial intelligence. Nature, 521(7553), 415–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schönberger, D. (2019). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: a critical analysis of the legal and ethical implications. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 27(2), 171–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Shank, D. B., & DeSanti, A. (2018). Attributions of morality and mind to artificial intelligence after real-world moral violations. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 401–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, K., & Kwon, O. (2020). Technology acceptance theories and factors influencing artificial Intelligence-based intelligent products. Telematics and Informatics, 47, 101324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, P., Brooks, R., Brynjolfsson, E., Calo, R., Etzioni, O., Hager, G., Hirschberg, J., et al. (2016). Artificialintelligence and life in 2030: the one hundred year study on artificialintelligence. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2016-09/apo-nid210721.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2021

  • Sugumaran, V., Geetha, T. V., Manjula, D., & Gopal, H. (2017). Guest editorial: Computational intelligence and applications. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(5), 969–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tandon, U., Kiran, R., & Sah, A. N. (2016). Understanding online shopping adoption in India: unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2) with perceived risk application. Service Science, 8(4), 420–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trocin, C., Mikalef, P., Papamitsiou, Z., & Conboy, K. (2021). Responsible AI for digital health: a synthesis and a research agenda. Information Systems Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10146-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. (2018). Robot rules: Regulating artificial intelligence. Springer

  • van Pinxteren, M. M., Wetzels, R. W., Rüger, J., Pluymaekers, M., & Wetzels, M. (2019). Trust in humanoid robots: Implications for services marketing. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(4), 507–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakunuma, K. J., & Stahl, B. C. (2014). Tomorrow’s ethics and today’s response: An investigation into the ways information systems professionals perceive and address emerging ethical issues. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(3), 383–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wamba, S. F., & Queiroz, M. M. (2021). Responsible artificial intelligence as a secret ingredient for digital health: Bibliometric analysis, insights, and research directions. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10142-8

  • Wang, Y., Xiong, M., & Olya, H. (2020). Toward an understanding of responsible artificial intelligence practices. In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 4962–4971). Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)

  • Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Geyer, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the public sector—Applications and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(7), 596–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. A., & Schultz, A. E. (2018). The rising tide of artificial intelligence and business automation: Developing an ethical framework. Business Horizons, 61(6), 823–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaefarian, G., Kadile, V., Henneberg, S. C., & Leischnig, A. (2017). Endogeneity bias in marketing research: Problem, causes and remedies. Industrial Marketing Management, 65, 39–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., Gupta, A., Zhang, J., & Sarathy, R. (2014). Examining the decision to use standalone personal health record systems as a trust-enabled fair social contract. Decision Support Systems, 57, 376-386.

  • IBEF (2021). India Brand Equity Foundation Report: IT & BPM. Last accessed on 05 July 2021. https://www.ibef.org/download/IT-and-BPM-January-2021.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems, Supply Chain & Decision Making, NEOMA Business School, 59 Rue Pierre Taittinger, 51100, Reims, France

    Shivam Gupta

  2. Department of Management Studies, National Institute of Technology Hamirpur, 177001, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, India

    Shampy Kamboj

  3. Department of Supply Chain Management/ Information Systems, Rabat Business School, International University of Rabat, Technopolis Rabat-Shore Rocade Rabat-Salé, Rabat, Morocco

    Surajit Bag

Authors
  1. Shivam Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shampy Kamboj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Surajit Bag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

We submit CRediT author(s) statement outlining individual contributions as follows: Dr. Shivam Gupta Conceptualization, Supervision, Formal analysis, Validation and Writing-review & editing. Dr. Shampy Kamboj Investigation, Methodology and Writing- original draft. Dr. Surajit Bag Resources, Visualization, Writing-review & editing and Project administration.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Shampy Kamboj or Surajit Bag.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table 7 Operationalization of constructs
Full size table

Appendix B

Table 8 Total variance explained
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gupta, S., Kamboj, S. & Bag, S. Role of Risks in the Development of Responsible Artificial Intelligence in the Digital Healthcare Domain. Inf Syst Front 25, 2257–2274 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10174-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10174-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation