What do Welsh focus groups want from healthcare AI?
Across four focus groups involving 21 people, participants repeatedly asked for human contact, human oversight and secure governance. The peer-reviewed study offers useful reasons and contrasts between groups, but its small, NHS-connected sample cannot estimate what Wales as a whole believes.
The short version
- What happened
- The researchers held four 90-to-120-minute focus groups with 21 people: six healthcare professionals, six members of the public, five sixth-form students and four retirees.
- Who it affects
- Patients want the option to receive explanation and care from a person, not merely a technically supervised automated process.
- What remains unproven
- The qualitative sample contained 21 participants across four groups and was not designed to represent the Welsh population.
Keep in mind
The qualitative sample contained 21 participants across four groups and was not designed to represent the Welsh population.
Many public and retiree participants had NHS, healthcare or digital-technology experience.
Recruitment did not produce the intended migrant or refugee group, and Welsh-language and other linguistic-minority views were not specifically examined.
Participants often discussed AI broadly rather than consistently distinguishing machine-learning modalities.
The study records stated views, not observed choices or outcomes from a deployed healthcare system.
Source analysis · 1 linked source. Primary analysed source date: 12 October 2026.
Read the full report · 7 min The evidence, methods, implications and limitations
The answer: retain a person, a clear responsibility and a secure route for data
Participants in four Welsh focus groups repeatedly described three conditions for acceptable healthcare AI: human contact during care, meaningful human oversight and credible protection of health information. They could see advantages in faster routine work, wider service capacity, consistent analysis and reduced human bias. Yet they did not treat technical accuracy as sufficient. Their questions focused on who remains responsible, whether a person can intervene, which organisation holds the data and whether efficiency will displace relationships that matter to patients.
The study is useful because it records the reasoning behind those views and compares four social groups. It is not a survey estimate. Twenty-one participants cannot establish that a stated percentage of people in Wales holds a view, and the recruitment pattern gives healthcare experience unusual weight. The result should guide questions for service design and larger studies rather than be quoted as a national mandate.[1]
Who took part and how the discussions were run
The sample comprised six healthcare professionals, six people labelled as members of the public, five sixth-form students and four retirees. The four sessions ran from 25 June to 11 September 2025 and lasted 90 to 120 minutes. Professional and public groups met through Microsoft Teams; student and retiree groups met in person and were recorded on two devices. Participants were not paid.
Some participants had responded to an earlier Wales-wide online survey and volunteered contact details. The team also approached a sixth-form college, a church and Oasis Cardiff in an effort to reach groups underrepresented in the survey. Recruitment through Oasis did not produce a migrant or refugee focus group. Most of the public group worked in non-clinical NHS roles, two worked in digital technology, three retirees had healthcare experience and one regularly used AI in study. Those connections informed the discussion but narrow the claim to a general public sample.[1]
The analysis identified seven linked thematic networks
Researchers used a semi-structured guide covering hopes, worries, trade-offs and proxy consent. They applied inductive thematic analysis, building themes from the transcripts rather than imposing a fixed survey scale, and added contiguity-based analysis to examine how concerns related to one another. Coding was completed in Microsoft Word and iteratively reviewed across the research team. The paper reports seven thematic networks, with five broad themes recurring across the groups.
Those recurring themes concerned confidentiality, security and governance; social consequences such as work and inequality; trust in people and organisations; expected benefits; and consent for a person's own care or care decided by a proxy. The study also records worries about errors, automation bias, clinician deskilling and poor digital infrastructure. Qualitative themes show what was discussed and how ideas connect. They do not rank each concern or show how often it would determine an actual treatment choice.[1]
Human oversight meant more than placing a clinician near the system
Participants wanted a human in the loop, but their concerns suggest that nominal supervision is not enough. A clinician needs time, authority and enough understanding to challenge an output. Several discussions connected black-box reasoning with liability: if neither patient nor professional can understand why a recommendation appeared, responsibility can become blurred. Human contact was valued not only as a safety check but as part of care itself, including explanation, empathy and the ability to notice context not captured in structured data.
The groups were not identical. Healthcare professionals showed greater willingness than some other participants to trust black-box tools, while trust in clinicians, the NHS, academia and private developers varied. Private, profit-seeking companies attracted particular concern. These contrasts caution against a single trust score. Acceptance can depend on the task, organisation, data flow, clinician relationship and consequences of an error.[1]
Consent questions did not create a separate rule for AI
When considering consent, participants generally applied familiar healthcare principles. They expected valid consent for their own care and best-interest decision-making when another person acts as a proxy. The analysis did not identify a distinct additional barrier or facilitator unique to proxy consent. That does not mean consent is solved: the authors note the practical difficulty of explaining an AI system when staff themselves may not know that it is embedded in a workflow or how it produced an output.
For patients, meaningful information should therefore identify the role of the system, what data it uses, whether it changes a decision, who checks it and how to question an error. A generic notice that a service uses AI cannot carry all of that work. Some uses may be too remote from an individual decision to require transaction-by-transaction consent, while high-consequence recommendations may require fuller disclosure. The focus groups raise the issue but do not determine a legal standard.[1]
What NHS teams can take from a small qualitative study
Clinicians and managers can use the findings as a design checklist. Before introducing a tool, they can map where human contact is preserved, who owns the decision, how staff can override the output, which data leave the health service, and how patients obtain correction. They should also measure whether promised time savings create more review work, whether paper and digital records are complete enough for safe use, and whether staff without specialist technical knowledge can recognise failure.
Confidence would rise with purposeful recruitment of Welsh speakers, migrant and refugee communities, people with disabilities, carers and patients who have experienced digital exclusion or diagnostic error. Larger surveys could then estimate prevalence, while observed-choice studies and real service pilots could test whether stated preferences predict behaviour. The work was supported by Health Education and Improvement Wales and NHS Wales Performance and Improvement; the authors declared no commercial or financial conflicts. It is a grounded starting point, not a referendum on healthcare AI.[1]