Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36450391›Full record

ArticleFamily medicine and community health2022

Artificial intelligence and health inequities in primary care: a systematic scoping review and framework.

Alexander d'Elia, Mark Gabbay, Sarah Rodgers, Ciara Kierans, Elisa Jones, Irum Durrani, Adele Thomas, Lucy Frith

Open access · diamondAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Family medicine and community health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
17.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 114 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. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational

5 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Alexander d'EliaDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK adelia@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8735-9689
Mark GabbayPrimary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Sarah RodgersDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Ciara KieransDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Elisa JonesDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Irum DurraniARC NWC, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Adele ThomasARC NWC, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Lucy FrithCentre for Social Ethics & Policy, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
University of Liverpool · GBCentre for Social Innovation · UA

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveArtificial intelligence (AI) will have a significant impact on healthcare over the coming decade. At the same time, health inequity remains one of the biggest challenges. Primary care is both a driver and a mitigator of health inequities and with AI gaining traction in primary care, there is a need for a holistic understanding of how AI affect health inequities, through the act of providing care and through potential system effects. This paper presents a systematic scoping review of the ways AI implementation in primary care may impact health inequity.

designFollowing a systematic scoping review approach, we searched for literature related to AI, health inequity, and implementation challenges of AI in primary care. In addition, articles from primary exploratory searches were added, and through reference screening.The results were thematically summarised and used to produce both a narrative and conceptual model for the mechanisms by which social determinants of health and AI in primary care could interact to either improve or worsen health inequities.Two public advisors were involved in the review process. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed publications and grey literature in English and Scandinavian languages. INFORMATION SOURCES: PubMed, SCOPUS and JSTOR.

resultsA total of 1529 publications were identified, of which 86 met the inclusion criteria. The findings were summarised under six different domains, covering both positive and negative effects: (1) access, (2) trust, (3) dehumanisation, (4) agency for self-care, (5) algorithmic bias and (6) external effects. The five first domains cover aspects of the interface between the patient and the primary care system, while the last domain covers care system-wide and societal effects of AI in primary care. A graphical model has been produced to illustrate this. Community involvement throughout the whole process of designing and implementing of AI in primary care was a common suggestion to mitigate the potential negative effects of AI.

conclusionAI has the potential to affect health inequities through a multitude of ways, both directly in the patient consultation and through transformative system effects. This review summarises these effects from a system tive and provides a base for future research into responsible implementation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHealth InequitiesGray LiteratureHumansPrimary Health CarePubMedGeneral PracticeHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Equity

Identifiers

PMID36450391
PMCPMC9716837
OpenAlexW4310398792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.