Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36925879›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2022

Realizing the potential of artificial intelligence in healthcare: Learning from intervention, innovation, implementation and improvement sciences.

Per Nilsen, Julie Reed, Monika Nair, Carl Savage, Carl Macrae, James Barlow, Petra Svedberg, Ingrid Larsson, Lina Lundgren, Jens Nygren

Open access · diamondFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Machine Learning Operations in Health Care: A Scoping Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2024
    Review
  9. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Per NilsenSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Julie ReedSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Monika NairSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Carl SavageSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Carl MacraeSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
James BarlowSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Petra SvedbergSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Ingrid LarssonSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Lina LundgrenSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Jens NygrenSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Halmstad University · SEKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) is widely seen as critical for tackling fundamental challenges faced by health systems. However, research is scant on the factors that influence the implementation and routine use of AI in healthcare, how AI may interact with the context in which it is implemented, and how it can contribute to wider health system goals. We propose that AI development can benefit from knowledge generated in four scientific fields: intervention, innovation, implementation and improvement sciences. Aim: The aim of this paper is to briefly describe the four fields and to identify potentially relevant knowledge from these fields that can be utilized for understanding and/or facilitating the use of AI in healthcare. The paper is based on the authors' experience and expertise in intervention, innovation, implementation, and improvement sciences, and a selective literature review. Utilizing knowledge from the four fields: The four fields have generated a wealth of often-overlapping knowledge, some of which we propose has considerable relevance for understanding and/or facilitating the use of AI in healthcare. Conclusion: Knowledge derived from intervention, innovation, implementation, and improvement sciences provides a head start for research on the use of AI in healthcare, yet the extent to which this knowledge can be repurposed in AI studies cannot be taken for granted. Thus, when taking advantage of insights in the four fields, it is important to also be explorative and use inductive research approaches to generate knowledge that can contribute toward realizing the potential of AI in healthcare.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceimplementationimprovementinnovationintervention

Identifiers

PMID36925879
PMCPMC10012740
OpenAlexW4295807373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
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.