Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35084349›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Implementation Frameworks for Artificial Intelligence Translation Into Health Care Practice: Scoping Review.

Fábio Gama, Daniel Tyskbo, Jens Nygren, James Barlow, Julie Reed, Petra Svedberg

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

107 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Factors Influencing Physician Adherence to Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Model Recommendations: A Best-Worst Scaling.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Fábio GamaSchool of Business, Innovation and Sustainability, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1390-1820
Daniel TyskboSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3727-6153
Jens NygrenSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3576-2393
James BarlowCentre for Health Economics and Policy Innovation, Imperial College Business School, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4984-0126
Julie ReedSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9974-2017
Petra SvedbergSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4438-6673

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSignificant efforts have been made to develop artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for health care improvement. Despite the enthusiasm, health care professionals still struggle to implement AI in their daily practice.

objectiveThis paper aims to identify the implementation frameworks used to understand the application of AI in health care practice.

methodsA scoping review was conducted using the Cochrane, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases to identify publications that reported frameworks, models, and theories concerning AI implementation in health care. This review focused on studies published in English and investigating AI implementation in health care since 2000. A total of 2541 unique publications were retrieved from the databases and screened on titles and abstracts by 2 independent reviewers. Selected articles were thematically analyzed against the Nilsen taxonomy of implementation frameworks, and the Greenhalgh framework for the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) of health care technologies.

resultsIn total, 7 articles met all eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review, and 2 articles included formal frameworks that directly addressed AI implementation, whereas the other articles provided limited descriptions of elements influencing implementation. Collectively, the 7 articles identified elements that aligned with all the NASSS domains, but no single article comprehensively considered the factors known to influence technology implementation. New domains were identified, including dependency on data input and existing processes, shared decision-making, the role of human oversight, and ethics of population impact and inequality, suggesting that existing frameworks do not fully consider the unique needs of AI implementation.

conclusionsThis literature review demonstrates that understanding how to implement AI in health care practice is still in its early stages of development. Our findings suggest that further research is needed to provide the knowledge necessary to develop implementation frameworks to guide the future implementation of AI in clinical practice and highlight the opportunity to draw on existing knowledge from the field of implementation science.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansImplementation ScienceTechnologyartificial intelligenceimplementation frameworkscoping review

Identifiers

PMID35084349
PMCPMC8832266

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.