ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
AI health literacy as a foundation for responsible AI in healthcare: a framework for trustworthy implementation.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming how healthcare is delivered, but there is mounting evidence revealing a critical gap between technical sophistication and the human capacity to deploy, interpret, and govern these systems responsibly. Current ethical AI frameworks emphasize fairness, transparency, and accountability but they miss a foundational prerequisite: stakeholder AI literacy. Objective: This paper proposes a conceptual framework positioning digital health literacy, specifically AI-augmented health literacy, as the measurable literacy competencies among clinicians, patients, and governance professionals, even in ethically designed AI systems will fail to achieve trustworthy deployment. Methods: This paper is a critical narrative review with a normative governance purpose. This paper integrates evidence from three domains (1) documented AI failures in healthcare due to literacy gaps (2) systematic reviews of digital health literacy measurement tools revealing their inadequacy in the context of AI (3) insights from European data governance (General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR], European Health Data Space [EHDS] and AI Act) illustrating that legal harmonization without stakeholder comprehension produces fragmented, ineffective governance. Results: The analysis of high-profile AI implementation failures suggest a recurring pattern in which literacy deficits at critical decision points may have been a contributing factor. Current measurement tools, including the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS, developed 2006), lack AI-specific competencies and measure perceived instead of actual skills. We identify six AI literacy dimensions lacking in existing instruments, namely algorithmic literacy, bias awareness, data governance understanding, critical appraisal of AI outputs, trust calibration, and explainability interpretation. Conclusions: These findings suggests that responsible AI in healthcare may require concurrent investment in human capacity building alongside technical and regulatory development. This paper proposes a three-tier literacy framework, encompassing clinician AI literacy, patient AI literacy, and governance AI literacy, with sector-specific competencies and assessment strategies. The three-tier framework proposed here is offered as a governance hypothesis requiring empirical validation rather than as a conclusion already established by the available evidence.
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.