ArticleBMJ open2026
Capacity building for ethical use of artificial intelligence in health: protocol for a scoping review of training initiatives and gaps in Africa.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Progress in the research of artificial intelligence in andrology: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly embedded in health systems, with applications spanning diagnostic imaging, clinical decision support, disease surveillance and health system planning. While international guidance frameworks outline principles for safe and ethical AI deployment, effective governance depends on the capacity of regulators, research ethics committees, policymakers, health technology assessment bodies and frontline health professionals to evaluate, supervise and implement AI tools in practice. Across African Union (AU) member states, training and capacity-building initiatives related to ethical AI use in health remain fragmented and unevenly documented. This scoping review aims to systematically map, characterise and synthesise evidence on training initiatives that support the ethical use and governance of AI in health across Africa. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines and applies the Joanna Briggs Institute population-concept-context framework. We will search PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, IEEE Xplore, SSRN and African Journals Online, alongside structured grey literature searches of African regional bodies (eg, AU, Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AUDA-NEPAD, WHO Regional Office for Africa), national regulatory authorities, ministries of health, professional councils and donor programme portals. Searches will cover 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2025 and will be limited to English-language materials. Eligible sources must describe identifiable training, education or capacity-building initiatives focused on ethical use and/or governance of AI in health, including software as a medical device and AI-enabled medical devices, delivered in or explicitly targeting at least one AU member state. Purely technical AI training without governance or clinical integration components will be excluded. Two reviewers will independently screen records and extract data. Findings will be synthesised using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis. Where feasible, stakeholder consultation will be undertaken to contextualise the results and refine the draft competency framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The review will analyse publicly available documents and does not involve human participants; formal ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed open-access publication, a policy brief targeted at regional and national health governance stakeholders, and a public webinar. Search strategies, screening decisions and extraction tools will be deposited on the Open Science Framework (OSF) to enhance transparency. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://osf.io/d2rcm/.
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.