ArticleGlobal health action2026
Between the hype and harm: does artificial intelligence in health offer solace or further exclusion for marginalised populations in Sub-Saharan Africa? A scoping review.
Article in Global health action, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into healthcare systems and has the potential to improve health outcomes. In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), however, concerns remain that AI may either reduce or exacerbate existing health inequities depending on how it is developed, governed, and implemented. This scoping review aimed to map and synthesise the existing evidence on the implications of AI for health equity among marginalised populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and selected grey literature sources were searched between February and March 2026. Peer-reviewed and grey literature examining AI applications, governance, or implementation in healthcare involving marginalised populations or health systems within SSA were eligible for inclusion. The review followed the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline. Two reviewers independently screened sources of evidence and extracted data using a standardised charting form, and findings were synthesised thematically. Twenty-three sources of evidence met the inclusion criteria. Two dominant narratives emerged. AI may reinforce existing inequities through digital infrastructure gaps, algorithmic bias, under-representation of African datasets, weak governance, and data colonialism. Conversely, AI has the potential to improve health equity by expanding healthcare access, strengthening disease surveillance, supporting health system planning, and improving access to specialised services. Across the literature, AI's impact consistently depended on equitable infrastructure, inclusive governance, and context-specific implementation. AI has considerable potential to advance health equity in SSA. However, achieving equitable benefits requires investment in digital infrastructure, representative data systems, ethical governance, and inclusive policies.
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.