ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Impact, use, and implications of artificial intelligence in public health decision making by elected officials: a scoping review.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare Policy: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research Trends.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-enabled early warning systems for public health preparedness: perspectives of senior public health leaders in a Small Island Developing State.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) offers considerable promise for strengthening governmental public health decision making by supporting rapid, comprehensive analysis of complex data. Although AI applications have been widely examined in clinical and academic settings, their use in public health agencies and policymaking remains less well understood. Methods: This scoping review assessed how AI has been applied to support decision making by public health professionals and elected officials in both routine and crisis contexts. Using PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched PubMed, OAISTER, and Web of Science for literature published between 2014 and 2024. From 13,239 records identified, seven studies met final inclusion criteria. Results: The identified evidence base is primarily descriptive and exploratory, with limited empirical evaluation of outcomes or effectiveness. All included studies described AI use during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on vaccination decision support, contact tracing, quarantine enforcement, and/or movement restrictions, which limits generalizability to other public health contexts and decision-making scenarios. Findings highlight a small but emerging evidence base, with most applications developed in response to emergencies rather than embedded in routine practice. Discussion: Future opportunities for AI include advancing surveillance, communication, and resource allocation. However, critical challenges remain regarding governance, equity, and implementation. Further research is needed to evaluate AI interventions in diverse contexts and establish sustainable pathways for adoption by governmental public health agencies.
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.