ArticleImplementation science communications2024
Intervention design for artificial intelligence-enabled macular service implementation: a primary qualitative study.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Me, my doctor and AI: a qualitative interview study on patients' requirements for trustworthy use of AI-CDSS in ophthalmology.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- Dual site external validation of artificial intelligence-enabled treatment monitoring for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in England.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Sociotechnical influences on the adoption and use of AI-enabled clinical decision support systems in ophthalmology: a theory-based interview study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Theoretical appraisal of explanatory paradigms for artificial intelligence usage by medical doctors.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is one of the largest single-disease contributors to hospital outpatient appointments. Challenges in finding the clinical capacity to meet this demand can lead to sight-threatening delays in the macular services that provide treatment. Clinical artificial intelligence (AI) technologies pose one opportunity to rebalance demand and capacity in macular services. However, there is a lack of evidence to guide early-adopters seeking to use AI as a solution to demand-capacity imbalance. This study aims to provide guidance for these early adopters on how AI-enabled macular services may best be implemented by exploring what will influence the outcome of AI implementation and why.
methodsThirty-six semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants. Data were analysed with the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) framework to identify factors likely to influence implementation outcomes. These factors and the primary data then underwent a secondary analysis using the Fit between Individuals, Technology and Task (FITT) framework to propose an actionable intervention.
resultsnAMD treatment should be initiated at face-to-face appointments with clinicians who recommend year-long periods of AI-enabled scheduling of treatments. This aims to maintain or enhance the quality of patient communication, whilst reducing consultation frequency. Appropriately trained photographers should take on the additional roles of inputting retinal imaging into the AI device and overseeing its communication to clinical colleagues, while ophthalmologists assume clinical oversight and consultation roles. Interoperability to facilitate this intervention would best be served by imaging equipment that can send images to the cloud securely for analysis by AI tools. Picture Archiving and Communication Software (PACS) should have the capability to output directly into electronic medical records (EMR) familiar to clinical and administrative staff.
conclusionThere are many enablers to implementation and few of the remaining barriers relate directly to the AI technology itself. The proposed intervention requires local tailoring and prospective evaluation but can support early adopters in optimising the chances of success from initial efforts to implement AI-enabled macular services. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Hogg HDJ, Brittain K, Teare D, Talks J, Balaskas K, Keane P, Maniatopoulos G. Safety and efficacy of an artificial intelligence-enabled decision tool for treatment decisions in neovascular age-related macular degeneration and an exploration of clinical pathway integration and implementation: protocol for a multi-methods validation study. BMJ Open. 2023 Feb 1;13(2):e069443. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069443 . PMID: 36725098; PMCID: PMC9896175.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.