ArticleHealth economics review2026
Challenges of AI for cost-effectiveness in health: a hybrid MCDM model.
Article in Health economics review, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to elucidate the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in achieving cost-effectiveness within healthcare services, and to address the challenges that hinder its integration.
methodsA hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model based on the DEMATEL and ARAS methods was designed. Data were collected with the participation of ten experts working in the fields of health management, health economics and health policy in Canada, India, Switzerland, USA and Türkiye. The causal relationships between the challenges were analyzed using DEMATEL analysis and the solutions to these challenges were evaluated using the ARAS method.
resultsAs a result of the DEMATEL analysis, the "Regulatory and ethical concerns (REC)" criterion reached the highest level of importance (13.94%), followed by "High initial costs and financial constraints (ICFC)" (13.65%) and "Lack of data standardization and biases (DBHQ)" (13.29%). In the ARAS evaluation, among the proposed solutions, "Carrying out comprehensive awareness-raising activities for patients and their relatives (SS3)" achieved the highest performance value (Ki = 0.93), followed by "Providing inclusive incentives for AI transformation (SS5)" (Ki = 0.87) and "Establishing a blockchain-based cybersecurity system (SS2)" (Ki = 0.85).
conclusionsTo achieve cost-effectiveness through AI in healthcare, it is imperative to establish a robust, integrated, and standardized data infrastructure, develop comprehensive ethical and regulatory frameworks, and implement patient education programs to foster trust and acceptance of AI technologies. This study provides policymakers and practitioners with evidence-based recommendations to facilitate the successful integration of AI in healthcare, ultimately enhancing cost-efficiency and service delivery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42919034What 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.