Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Tools to foster responsibility in digital solutions that operate with or without artificial intelligence: A scoping review for health and innovation policymakers.
Lehoux, P; Rivard, L; de Oliveira, R Rocha; Mörch, C M; Alami, H.
Affiliation
  • Lehoux P; Department of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, Université de Montréal, Center for Public Health Research (CReSP), Université de Montréal and CIUSSS du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, 7101 Av du Parc, Montréal, Québec H3N 1X9, Canada. Electronic address: pascale.lehoux@umontreal.ca.
  • Rivard L; Center for Public Health Research (CReSP), Université de Montréal, Canada. Electronic address: lysanne.rivard@umontreal.ca.
  • de Oliveira RR; Center for Public Health Research (CReSP), Université de Montréal, Canada. Electronic address: robson.rocha.de.oliveira@umontreal.ca.
  • Mörch CM; FARI - AI for the Common Good Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 10-12, Cantersteen, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: carl.morch@ulb.be.
  • Alami H; Interdisciplinary Research in Health Sciences, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, United Kingdom. Electronic address: hassane.alami@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Int J Med Inform ; 170: 104933, 2023 02.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36521423
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Digital health solutions that operate with or without artificial intelligence (D/AI) raise several responsibility challenges. Though many frameworks and tools have been developed, determining what principles should be translated into practice remains under debate. This scoping review aims to provide policymakers with a rigorous body of knowledge by asking 1) what kinds of practice-oriented tools are available?; 2) on what principles do they predominantly rely?; and 3) what are their limitations?

METHODS:

We searched six academic and three grey literature databases for practice-oriented tools, defined as frameworks and/or sets of principles with clear operational explanations, published in English or French from 2015 to 2021. Characteristics of the tools were qualitatively coded and variations across the dataset identified through descriptive statistics and a network analysis.

FINDINGS:

A total of 56 tools met our inclusion criteria 19 health-specific tools (33.9%) and 37 generic tools (66.1%). They adopt a normative (57.1%), reflective (35.7%), operational (3.6%), or mixed approach (3.6%) to guide developers (14.3%), managers (16.1%), end users (10.7%), policymakers (5.4%) or multiple groups (53.6%). The frequency of 40 principles varies greatly across tools (from 0% for 'environmental sustainability' to 83.8% for 'transparency'). While 50% or more of the generic tools promote up to 19 principles, 50% or more of the health-specific tools promote 10 principles, and 50% or more of all tools disregard 21 principles. In contrast to the scattered network of principles proposed by academia, the business sector emphasizes closely connected principles. Few tools rely on a formal methodology (17.9%).

CONCLUSION:

Despite a lack of consensus, there is a solid knowledge-basis for policymakers to anchor their role in such a dynamic field. Because several tools lack rigour and ignore key social, economic, and environmental issues, an integrated and methodologically sound approach to responsibility in D/AI solutions is warranted.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Artificial Intelligence Type of study: Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Int J Med Inform Journal subject: INFORMATICA MEDICA Year: 2023 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Artificial Intelligence Type of study: Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Int J Med Inform Journal subject: INFORMATICA MEDICA Year: 2023 Type: Article