Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37464420›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2023

Innovation in healthcare: leadership perceptions about the innovation characteristics of artificial intelligence-a qualitative interview study with healthcare leaders in Sweden.

Margit Neher, Lena Petersson, Jens M Nygren, Petra Svedberg, Ingrid Larsson, Per Nilsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Stakeholder Perspectives of Implementation Barriers of Artificial Intelligence in Eye Care: A qualitative framework-based study.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Machine Learning Operations in Health Care: A Scoping Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Margit NeherSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Box 823, SE-30118, Halmstad, Sweden. margit.neher@hh.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2764-3722
Lena PeterssonSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Box 823, SE-30118, Halmstad, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7874-7970
Jens M NygrenSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Box 823, SE-30118, Halmstad, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3576-2393
Petra SvedbergSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Box 823, SE-30118, Halmstad, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4438-6673
Ingrid LarssonSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Box 823, SE-30118, Halmstad, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4341-660X
Per NilsenSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Box 823, SE-30118, Halmstad, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0657-9079

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the extensive hopes and expectations for value creation resulting from the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare, research has predominantly been technology-centric rather than focused on the many changes that are required in clinical practice for the technology to be successfully implemented. The importance of leaders in the successful implementation of innovations in healthcare is well recognised, yet their perspectives on the specific innovation characteristics of AI are still unknown. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the perceptions of leaders in healthcare concerning the innovation characteristics of AI intended to be implemented into their organisation.

methodsThe study had a deductive qualitative design, using constructs from the innovation domain in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were conducted with 26 leaders in healthcare.

resultsParticipants perceived that AI could provide relative advantages when it came to care management, supporting clinical decisions, and the early detection of disease and risk of disease. The development of AI in the organisation itself was perceived as the main current innovation source. The evidence base behind AI technology was questioned, in relation to its transparency, potential quality improvement, and safety risks. Although the participants acknowledged AI to be superior to human action in terms of effectiveness and precision in some situations, they also expressed uncertainty about the adaptability and trialability of AI. Complexities such as the characteristics of the technology, the lack of conceptual consensus about AI, and the need for a variety of implementation strategies to accomplish transformative change in practice were identified, as were uncertainties about the costs involved in AI implementation.

conclusionHealthcare leaders not only saw potential in the technology and its use in practice, but also felt that AI's opacity limits its evidence strength and that complexities in relation to AI itself and its implementation influence its current use in healthcare practice. More research is needed based on actual experiences using AI applications in real-world situations and their impact on clinical practice. New theories, models, and frameworks may need to be developed to meet challenges related to the implementation of AI in healthcare.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceConsolidated framework of implementation researchHealthcareHealthcare leadersImplementationOrganisational changeQualitative methodsStakeholders

Identifiers

PMID37464420
PMCPMC10354990

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.