An introduction to digital determinants of health.

In recent years, technology has been increasingly incorporated within healthcare for the provision of safe and efficient delivery of services. Although this can be attributed to the benefits that can be harnessed, digital technology has the potential to exacerbate and reinforce preexisting health disparities. Previous work has highlighted how sociodemographic, economic, and political factors affect individuals' interactions with digital health systems and are termed social determinants of health [SDOH]. But, there is a paucity of literature addressing how the intrinsic design, implementation, and use of technology interact with SDOH to influence health outcomes. Such interactions are termed digital determinants of health [DDOH]. This paper will, for the first time, propose a definition of DDOH and provide a conceptual model characterizing its influence on healthcare outcomes. Specifically, DDOH is implicit in the design of artificial intelligence systems, mobile phone applications, telemedicine, digital health literacy [DHL], and other forms of digital technology. A better appreciation of DDOH by the various stakeholders at the individual and societal levels can be channeled towards policies that are more digitally inclusive. In tandem with ongoing work to minimize the digital divide caused by existing SDOH, further work is necessary to recognize digital determinants as an important and distinct entity.

The impact of commercial health datasets on medical research and health-care algorithms.

As the health-care industry emerges into a new era of digital health driven by cloud data storage, distributed computing, and machine learning, health-care data have become a premium commodity with value for private and public entities. Current frameworks of health data collection and distribution, whether from industry, academia, or government institutions, are imperfect and do not allow researchers to leverage the full potential of downstream analytical efforts. In this Health Policy paper, we review the current landscape of commercial health data vendors, with special emphasis on the sources of their data, challenges associated with data reproducibility and generalisability, and ethical considerations for data vending. We argue for sustainable approaches to curating open-source health data to enable global populations to be included in the biomedical research community. However, to fully implement these approaches, key stakeholders should come together to make health-care datasets increasingly accessible, inclusive, and representative, while balancing the privacy and rights of individuals whose data are being collected.

Quality assessment standards in artificial intelligence diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews: a meta-research study.

Artificial intelligence (AI) centred diagnostic systems are increasingly recognised as robust solutions in healthcare delivery pathways. In turn, there has been a concurrent rise in secondary research studies regarding these technologies in order to influence key clinical and policymaking decisions. It is therefore essential that these studies accurately appraise methodological quality and risk of bias within shortlisted trials and reports. In order to assess whether this critical step is performed, we undertook a meta-research study evaluating adherence to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool within AI diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews. A literature search was conducted on all studies published from 2000 to December 2020. Of 50 included reviews, 36 performed the quality assessment, of which 27 utilised the QUADAS-2 tool. Bias was reported across all four domains of QUADAS-2. Two hundred forty-three of 423 studies (57.5%) across all systematic reviews utilising QUADAS-2 reported a high or unclear risk of bias in the patient selection domain, 110 (26%) reported a high or unclear risk of bias in the index test domain, 121 (28.6%) in the reference standard domain and 157 (37.1%) in the flow and timing domain. This study demonstrates the incomplete uptake of quality assessment tools in reviews of AI-based diagnostic accuracy studies and highlights inconsistent reporting across all domains of quality assessment. Poor standards of reporting act as barriers to clinical implementation. The creation of an AI-specific extension for quality assessment tools of diagnostic accuracy AI studies may facilitate the safe translation of AI tools into clinical practice.