Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has the potential to transform medical practice within the medical imaging industry and materially improve productivity and patient outcomes. However, low acceptability of AI as a digital healthcare intervention among medical professionals threatens to undermine user uptake levels, hinder meaningful and optimal value-added engagement, and ultimately prevent these promising benefits from being realised. Understanding the factors underpinning AI acceptability will be vital for medical institutions to pinpoint areas of deficiency and improvement within their AI implementation strategies. This scoping review aims to survey the literature to provide a comprehensive summary of the key factors influencing AI acceptability among healthcare professionals in medical imaging domains and the different approaches which have been taken to investigate them. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed across five academic databases including Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Compendex, and Scopus from January 2013 to September 2023. This was done in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Overall, 31 articles were deemed appropriate for inclusion in the scoping review. Results: The literature has converged towards three overarching categories of factors underpinning AI acceptability including: user factors involving trust, system understanding, AI literacy, and technology receptiveness; system usage factors entailing value proposition, self-efficacy, burden, and workflow integration; and socioorganisational-cultural factors encompassing social influence, organisational readiness, ethicality, and perceived threat to professional identity. Yet, numerous studies have overlooked a meaningful subset of these factors that are integral to the use of medical AI systems such as the impact on clinical workflow practices, trust based on perceived risk and safety, and compatibility with the norms of medical professions. This is attributable to reliance on theoretical frameworks or ad-hoc approaches which do not explicitly account for healthcarespecific factors, the novelties of AI as software as a medical device (SaMD), and the nuances of human-AI interaction from the perspective of medical professionals rather than lay consumer or business end users. Conclusion: This is the first scoping review to survey the health informatics literature around the key factors influencing the acceptability of AI as a digital healthcare intervention in medical imaging contexts. The factors identified in this review suggest that existing theoretical frameworks used to study AI acceptability need to be modified to better capture the nuances of AI deployment in healthcare contexts where the user is a healthcare professional influenced by expert knowledge and disciplinary norms. Increasing AI acceptability among medical professionals will critically require designing human-centred AI systems which go beyond high algorithmic performance to consider accessibility to users with varying degrees of AI literacy, clinical workflow practices, the institutional and deployment context, and the cultural, ethical, and safety norms of healthcare professions. As investment into AI for healthcare increases, it would be valuable to conduct a systematic review and metaanalysis of the causal contribution of these factors to achieving high levels of AI acceptability among medical professionals.
