RESUMEN
Artificial intelligence-based algorithms are being widely implemented in health care, even as evidence is emerging of bias in their design, problems with implementation, and potential harm to patients. To achieve the promise of using of AI-based tools to improve health, healthcare organizations will need to be AI-capable, with internal and external systems functioning in tandem to ensure the safe, ethical, and effective use of AI-based tools. Ideas are starting to emerge about the organizational routines, competencies, resources, and infrastructures that will be required for safe and effective deployment of AI in health care, but there has been little empirical research. Infrastructures that provide legal and regulatory guidance for managers, clinician competencies for the safe and effective use of AI-based tools, and learner-centric resources such as clear AI documentation and local health ecosystem impact reviews can help drive continuous improvement.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Disease prevention is a central aspect of primary care practice and is comprised of primary (eg, vaccinations), secondary (eg, screenings), tertiary (eg, chronic condition monitoring), and quaternary (eg, prevention of overmedicalization) levels. Despite rapid digital transformation of primary care practices, digital health interventions (DHIs) in preventive care have yet to be systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify and describe the scope and use of current DHIs for preventive care in primary care settings. METHODS: A scoping review to identify literature published from 2014 to 2020 was conducted across multiple databases using keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms covering primary care professionals, prevention and care management, and digital health. A subgroup analysis identified relevant studies conducted in US primary care settings, excluding DHIs that use the electronic health record (EHR) as a retrospective data capture tool. Technology descriptions, outcomes (eg, health care performance and implementation science), and study quality as per Oxford levels of evidence were abstracted. RESULTS: The search yielded 5274 citations, of which 1060 full-text articles were identified. Following a subgroup analysis, 241 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily examined DHIs among health information technologies, including EHRs (166/241, 68.9%), clinical decision support (88/241, 36.5%), telehealth (88/241, 36.5%), and multiple technologies (154/241, 63.9%). DHIs were predominantly used for tertiary prevention (131/241, 54.4%). Of the core primary care functions, comprehensiveness was addressed most frequently (213/241, 88.4%). DHI users were providers (205/241, 85.1%), patients (111/241, 46.1%), or multiple types (89/241, 36.9%). Reported outcomes were primarily clinical (179/241, 70.1%), and statistically significant improvements were common (192/241, 79.7%). Results were summarized across the following 5 topics for the most novel/distinct DHIs: population-centered, patient-centered, care access expansion, panel-centered (dashboarding), and application-driven DHIs. The quality of the included studies was moderate to low. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive DHIs in primary care settings demonstrated meaningful improvements in both clinical and nonclinical outcomes, and across user types; however, adoption and implementation in the US were limited primarily to EHR platforms, and users were mainly clinicians receiving alerts regarding care management for their patients. Evaluations of negative results, effects on health disparities, and many other gaps remain to be explored.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools in the care of individual patients and patient populations is rapidly expanding. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to systematically identify research on provider competencies needed for the use of AI in clinical settings. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify articles published between January 1, 2009, and May 1, 2020, from MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases, using search queries for terms related to health care professionals (eg, medical, nursing, and pharmacy) and their professional development in all phases of clinical education, AI-based tools in all settings of clinical practice, and professional education domains of competencies and performance. Limits were provided for English language, studies on humans with abstracts, and settings in the United States. RESULTS: The searches identified 3476 records, of which 4 met the inclusion criteria. These studies described the use of AI in clinical practice and measured at least one aspect of clinician competence. While many studies measured the performance of the AI-based tool, only 4 measured clinician performance in terms of the knowledge, skills, or attitudes needed to understand and effectively use the new tools being tested. These 4 articles primarily focused on the ability of AI to enhance patient care and clinical decision-making by improving information flow and display, specifically for physicians. CONCLUSIONS: While many research studies were identified that investigate the potential effectiveness of using AI technologies in health care, very few address specific competencies that are needed by clinicians to use them effectively. This highlights a critical gap.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Contact tracing in association with quarantine and isolation is an important public health tool to control outbreaks of infectious diseases. This strategy has been widely implemented during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The effectiveness of this nonpharmaceutical intervention is largely dependent on social interactions within the population and its combination with other interventions. Given the high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, short serial intervals, and asymptomatic transmission patterns, the effectiveness of contact tracing for this novel viral agent is largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify and synthesize evidence regarding the effectiveness of contact tracing on infectious viral disease outcomes based on prior scientific literature. METHODS: An evidence-based review was conducted to identify studies from the PubMed database, including preprint medRxiv server content, related to the effectiveness of contact tracing in viral outbreaks. The search dates were from database inception to July 24, 2020. Outcomes of interest included measures of incidence, transmission, hospitalization, and mortality. RESULTS: Out of 159 unique records retrieved, 45 (28.3%) records were reviewed at the full-text level, and 24 (15.1%) records met all inclusion criteria. The studies included utilized mathematical modeling (n=14), observational (n=8), and systematic review (n=2) approaches. Only 2 studies considered digital contact tracing. Contact tracing was mostly evaluated in combination with other nonpharmaceutical interventions and/or pharmaceutical interventions. Although some degree of effectiveness in decreasing viral disease incidence, transmission, and resulting hospitalizations and mortality was observed, these results were highly dependent on epidemic severity (R0 value), number of contacts traced (including presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases), timeliness, duration, and compliance with combined interventions (eg, isolation, quarantine, and treatment). Contact tracing effectiveness was particularly limited by logistical challenges associated with increased outbreak size and speed of infection spread. CONCLUSIONS: Timely deployment of contact tracing strategically layered with other nonpharmaceutical interventions could be an effective public health tool for mitigating and suppressing infectious outbreaks by decreasing viral disease incidence, transmission, and resulting hospitalizations and mortality.