Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39383528›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Exploring the Need for Medical Futures Studies: Insights From a Scoping Review of Health Care Foresight.

Bertalan Meskó, Tamás Kristóf, Pranavsingh Dhunnoo, Nóra Árvai, Gellért Katonai

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Reporting Horizon Scanning Studies: Prototype Development Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. AI and Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Bertalan MeskóThe Medical Futurist Institute, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-7005-7083
Tamás KristófInstitute of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-2805-4900
Pranavsingh DhunnooThe Medical Futurist Institute, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-6843-4874
Nóra ÁrvaiThe Medical Futurist Institute, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0009-0009-8292-4859
Gellért KatonaiThe Medical Futurist Institute, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0009-0003-5699-8199

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe historical development and contemporary instances of futures studies, an interdisciplinary field that focuses on exploring and formulating alternative futures, exemplify the increasing significance of using futures methods in shaping the health care domain. Despite the wide array of these methodologies, there have been limited endeavors to employ them within the medical community thus far.

objectiveWe undertook the first scoping review to date about the application of futures methodologies and published foresight projects in health care.

methodsThrough the use of the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) method, we identified 59 studies that were subsequently categorized into the following 5 distinct themes: national strategies (n=19), strategic health care foresight (n=15), health care policy and workforce dynamics (n=6), pandemic preparedness and response (n=7), and specialized medical domains (n=12).

resultsOur scoping review revealed that the application of futures methods and foresight has been successfully demonstrated in a wide range of fields, including national strategies, policy formulation, global threat preparedness, and technological advancements. The results of our review indicate that a total of 8 futures methods have already been used in medicine and health care, while there are more than 50 futures methods available. It may underscore the notion that the field is unexploited. Furthermore, the absence of structured methodologies and principles for employing foresight and futures techniques in the health care domain warrants the creation of medical futures studies as a separate scientific subfield within the broad domains of health care, medicine, and life sciences. This subfield would focus on the analysis of emerging technological trends, the evaluation of policy implications, and the proactive anticipation and mitigation of potential challenges.

conclusionsFutures studies can significantly enhance medical science by addressing a crucial deficiency in the promotion of democratic participation, facilitating interdisciplinary dialogue, and shaping alternative futures. To further contribute to the development of a new research community in medical futures studies, it is recommended to establish a specialized scientific journal. Additionally, appointing dedicated futurists in decision-making and national strategy, and incorporating futures methods into the medical curriculum could be beneficial.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareForecastingHealth PolicyHumansforesightfutures studieshealth care futuremedical futurestechnology foresight

Identifiers

PMID39383528
PMCPMC11499746

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.