Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37639297›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2023

A Comprehensive, Valid, and Reliable Tool to Assess the Degree of Responsibility of Digital Health Solutions That Operate With or Without Artificial Intelligence: 3-Phase Mixed Methods Study.

Pascale Lehoux, Robson Rocha de Oliveira, Lysanne Rivard, Hudson Pacifico Silva, Hassane Alami, Carl Maria Mörch, Kathy Malas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

7 authors.

Pascale LehouxDepartment of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, Université de Montréal; Center for Public Health Research, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9482-1800
Robson Rocha de OliveiraCenter for Public Health Research, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4135-676X
Lysanne RivardCenter for Public Health Research, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4650-2543
Hudson Pacifico SilvaCenter for Public Health Research, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7507-0917
Hassane AlamiInterdisciplinary Research in Health Sciences, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5461-7693
Carl Maria MörchAI for the Common Good Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1318-3585
Kathy MalasInnovation and Artificial Intelligence, Executive Office, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8419-0507

Funding

CIHR FDN-143294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinicians' scope of responsibilities is being steadily transformed by digital health solutions that operate with or without artificial intelligence (DAI solutions). Most tools developed to foster ethical practices lack rigor and do not concurrently capture the health, social, economic, and environmental issues that such solutions raise.

objectiveTo support clinical leadership in this field, we aimed to develop a comprehensive, valid, and reliable tool that measures the responsibility of DAI solutions by adapting the multidimensional and already validated Responsible Innovation in Health Tool.

methodsWe conducted a 3-phase mixed methods study. Relying on a scoping review of available tools, phase 1 (concept mapping) led to a preliminary version of the Responsible DAI solutions Assessment Tool. In phase 2, an international 2-round e-Delphi expert panel rated on a 5-level scale the importance, clarity, and appropriateness of the tool's components. In phase 3, a total of 2 raters independently applied the revised tool to a sample of DAI solutions (n=25), interrater reliability was measured, and final minor changes were made to the tool.

resultsThe mapping process identified a comprehensive set of responsibility premises, screening criteria, and assessment attributes specific to DAI solutions. e-Delphi experts critically assessed these new components and provided comments to increase content validity (n=293), and after round 2, consensus was reached on 85% (22/26) of the items surveyed. Interrater agreement was substantial for a subcriterion and almost perfect for all other criteria and assessment attributes.

conclusionsThe Responsible DAI solutions Assessment Tool offers a comprehensive, valid, and reliable means of assessing the degree of responsibility of DAI solutions in health. As regulation remains limited, this forward-looking tool has the potential to change practice toward more equitable as well as economically and environmentally sustainable digital health care.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceLeadershipConsensusHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch Personnelartificial intelligence ethicsdigital health policye-Delphiinterrater agreementmixed methodsmobile phoneResponsible Innovation in Healthresponsible research and innovation

Identifiers

PMID37639297
PMCPMC10495857

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.