AI and Primary Care: Scoping Review.

Background: Primary health care (PHC) is critical for delivering accessible and continuous care but faces persistent challenges such as workforce shortages, administrative burden, and rising multimorbidity. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to support PHC by enhancing diagnosis, workflow efficiency, and clinical decision-making. However, existing research often overlooks how AI tools function within the complex realities of primary care and how clinicians and patients experience them. Objective: This scoping review maps the landscape of AI applications in PHC, with a focus on empirical studies involving direct engagement from PHC stakeholders. The review emphasizes real-world settings, clinical workflows, and the alignment of AI tools with the values and complexity of generalist care. Methods: Following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to April 13, 2024. Inclusion criteria were empirical, peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 2010 and April 2024, involving direct stakeholder interaction (general practitioners, nurses, or patients) in real-world PHC settings, evaluating AI applications (eg, diagnostics, workflow optimization, and documentation). Exclusions included algorithm-only validations, pediatric populations, secondary or tertiary care contexts not explicitly addressing PHC workflows, nonempirical research (eg, editorials or protocols), and non-English studies. We used thematic analysis to synthesize findings related to study aims, AI applications, and stakeholder roles. Results: Of 5224 identified records, 73 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were grouped into four main themes: (1) early intervention and decision support (n=21; 29%), (2) chronic disease management (n=16; 22%), (3) operations and patient management (n=12; 16%), and (4) acceptance and implementation experiences (n=24; 33%). AI tools frequently demonstrated strong technical accuracy, particularly in diagnostic decision support. However, implementation in routine practice was often limited by usability barriers, workflow misalignment, trust concerns, equity gaps, and financial constraints. Conclusions: Overall, AI holds significant potential to support PHC, especially when aligned with clinical reasoning, workflow needs, and relational care models. However, persistent implementation barriers such as usability challenges, training gaps, and workflow integration issues must be addressed. The evidence included in this review is limited by heterogeneity in study design and the predominance of small-scale feasibility studies. Future research should prioritize pragmatic trials, co-design with PHC professionals, and anticipatory planning using future methods to ensure responsible and equitable implementation.