Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39912237›Full record

SynthesisJMIR medical education2025

AI in the Health Sector: Systematic Review of Key Skills for Future Health Professionals.

Javier Gazquez-Garcia, Carlos Luis Sánchez-Bocanegra, Jose Luis Sevillano

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. AI Competency: Current State and Challenges.JMIR medical education · 2026
    Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Javier Gazquez-GarciaServicio Andaluz de Salud, Distrito Sanitario Almeria, Almeria, Spain.ORCID 0009-0005-0437-0708
Carlos Luis Sánchez-BocanegraFaculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7033-5971
Jose Luis SevillanoUniversidad de Sevilla, ETS Ingenieria Informatica, Avda Reina Mercedes s/n, Sevilla, 41012, Spain, 34954556142.ORCID 0000-0002-1392-1832

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Technological advancements have significantly reshaped health care, introducing digital solutions that enhance diagnostics and patient care. Artificial intelligence (AI) stands out, offering unprecedented capabilities in data analysis, diagnostic support, and personalized medicine. However, effectively integrating AI into health care necessitates specialized competencies among professionals, an area still in its infancy in terms of comprehensive literature and formalized training programs. Objective: This systematic review aims to consolidate the essential skills and knowledge health care professionals need to integrate AI into their clinical practice effectively, according to the published literature. Methods: We conducted a systematic review, across databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, of peer-reviewed literature that directly explored the required skills for health care professionals to integrate AI into their practice, published in English or Spanish from 2018 onward. Studies that did not refer to specific skills or training in digital health were not included, discarding those that did not directly contribute to understanding the competencies necessary to integrate AI into health care practice. Bias in the examined works was evaluated following Cochrane's domain-based recommendations. Results: The initial database search yielded a total of 2457 articles. After deleting duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 37 articles were selected for full-text review. Out of these, only 7 met all the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The review identified a diverse range of skills and competencies, that we categorized into 14 key areas classified based on their frequency of appearance in the selected studies, including AI fundamentals, data analytics and management, and ethical considerations. Conclusions: Despite the broadening of search criteria to capture the evolving nature of AI in health care, the review underscores a significant gap in focused studies on the required competencies. Moreover, the review highlights the critical role of regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration in facilitating the adoption of AI technologies by establishing trust and standardizing algorithms. Key areas were identified for developing competencies among health care professionals for the implementation of AI, including: AI fundamentals knowledge (more focused on assessing the accuracy, reliability, and validity of AI algorithms than on more technical abilities such as programming or mathematics), data analysis skills (including data acquisition, cleaning, visualization, management, and governance), and ethical and legal considerations. In an AI-enhanced health care landscape, the ability to humanize patient care through effective communication is paramount. This balance ensures that while AI streamlines tasks and potentially increases patient interaction time, health care professionals maintain a focus on compassionate care, thereby leveraging AI to enhance, rather than detract from, the patient experience. .

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical CompetenceHealth Care SectorHealth PersonnelHumansAI regulationartificial intelligencehealthcare competencieshealthcare educationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39912237
PMCPMC11822726

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.