Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33407254›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

"AI's gonna have an impact on everything in society, so it has to have an impact on public health": a fundamental qualitative descriptive study of the implications of artificial intelligence for public health.

Jason D Morgenstern, Laura C Rosella, Mark J Daley, Vivek Goel, Holger J Schünemann, Thomas Piggott

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Digital paradigm of public health.Frontiers in public health · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. What is Ethical Accountability?The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2025
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Innovations in public health surveillance: An overview of novel use of data and analytic methods.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jason D MorgensternDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Laura C RosellaDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mark J DaleyVector Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Vivek GoelDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Holger J SchünemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Thomas PiggottDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. piggott@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-1643-5386
Impact · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur objective was to determine the impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) on public health practice.

methodsWe used a fundamental qualitative descriptive study design, enrolling 15 experts in public health and AI from June 2018 until July 2019 who worked in North America and Asia. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews, iteratively coded the resulting transcripts, and analyzed the results thematically.

resultsWe developed 137 codes, from which nine themes emerged. The themes included opportunities such as leveraging big data and improving interventions; barriers to adoption such as confusion regarding AI's applicability, limited capacity, and poor data quality; and risks such as propagation of bias, exacerbation of inequity, hype, and poor regulation.

conclusionsExperts are cautiously optimistic about AI's impacts on public health practice, particularly for improving disease surveillance. However, they perceived substantial barriers, such as a lack of available expertise, and risks, including inadequate regulation. Therefore, investment and research into AI for public health practice would likely be beneficial. However, increased access to high-quality data, research and education regarding the limitations of AI, and development of rigorous regulation are necessary to realize these benefits.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePublic HealthAsiaBig DataHumansNorth AmericaBig dataCommunity medicineEpidemiologyMachine learningPopulation healthPreventive medicineQualitative

Identifiers

PMID33407254
PMCPMC7787411
OpenAlexW3120759169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.