Exploring the Need for Medical Futures Studies: Insights From a Scoping Review of Health Care Foresight.

BACKGROUND: The historical development and contemporary instances of futures studies, an interdisciplinary field that focuses on exploring and formulating alternative futures, exemplify the increasing significance of using futures methods in shaping the health care domain. Despite the wide array of these methodologies, there have been limited endeavors to employ them within the medical community thus far. OBJECTIVE: We undertook the first scoping review to date about the application of futures methodologies and published foresight projects in health care. METHODS: Through the use of the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) method, we identified 59 studies that were subsequently categorized into the following 5 distinct themes: national strategies (n=19), strategic health care foresight (n=15), health care policy and workforce dynamics (n=6), pandemic preparedness and response (n=7), and specialized medical domains (n=12). RESULTS: Our scoping review revealed that the application of futures methods and foresight has been successfully demonstrated in a wide range of fields, including national strategies, policy formulation, global threat preparedness, and technological advancements. The results of our review indicate that a total of 8 futures methods have already been used in medicine and health care, while there are more than 50 futures methods available. It may underscore the notion that the field is unexploited. Furthermore, the absence of structured methodologies and principles for employing foresight and futures techniques in the health care domain warrants the creation of medical futures studies as a separate scientific subfield within the broad domains of health care, medicine, and life sciences. This subfield would focus on the analysis of emerging technological trends, the evaluation of policy implications, and the proactive anticipation and mitigation of potential challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Futures studies can significantly enhance medical science by addressing a crucial deficiency in the promotion of democratic participation, facilitating interdisciplinary dialogue, and shaping alternative futures. To further contribute to the development of a new research community in medical futures studies, it is recommended to establish a specialized scientific journal. Additionally, appointing dedicated futurists in decision-making and national strategy, and incorporating futures methods into the medical curriculum could be beneficial.

Evaluation of Telemedicine Consultations Using Health Outcomes and User Attitudes and Experiences: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Despite a recent rise in adoption, telemedicine consultations retention remains challenging, and aspects around the associated experiences and outcomes remain unclear. The need to further investigate these aspects was a motivating factor for conducting this scoping review. OBJECTIVE: With a focus on synchronous telemedicine consultations between patients with nonmalignant chronic illnesses and health care professionals (HCPs), this scoping review aimed to gain insights into (1) the available evidence on telemedicine consultations to improve health outcomes for patients, (2) the associated behaviors and attitudes of patients and HCPs, and (3) how supplemental technology can assist in remote consultations. METHODS: PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guided the scoping review process. Inclusion criteria were (1) involving adults with nonmalignant, noncommunicable chronic conditions as the study population; (2) focusing on health outcomes and experiences of and attitudes toward synchronous telemedicine consultations between patients and HCPs; and (3) conducting empirical research. A search strategy was applied to PubMed (including MEDLINE), CINAHL Complete, APA PsycNet, Web of Science, IEEE, and ACM Digital. Screening of articles and data extraction from included articles were performed in parallel and independently by 2 researchers, who corroborated their findings and resolved any conflicts. RESULTS: Overall, 4167 unique articles were identified from the databases searched. Following multilayer filtration, 19 (0.46%) studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for data extraction. They investigated 6 nonmalignant chronic conditions, namely chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, ulcerative colitis, hypertension, and congestive heart failure, and the telemedicine consultation modality varied in each case. Most observed positive health outcomes for patients with chronic conditions using telemedicine consultations. Patients generally favored the modality's convenience, but concerns were highlighted around cost, practical logistics, and thoroughness of clinical examinations. The majority of HCPs were also in favor of the technology, but a minority experienced reduced job satisfaction. Supplemental technological assistance was identified in relation to technical considerations, improved remote workflow, and training in remote care use. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with noncommunicable chronic conditions, telemedicine consultations are generally associated with positive health outcomes that are either directly or indirectly related to their ailment, but sustained improvements remain unclear. These modalities also indicate the potential to empower such patients to better manage their condition. HCPs and patients tend to be satisfied with remote care experience, and most are receptive to the modality as an option. Assistance from supplemental technologies mostly resides in addressing technical issues, and additional modules could be integrated to address challenges relevant to patients and HCPs. However, positive outcomes and attitudes toward the modality might not apply to all cases, indicating that telemedicine consultations are more appropriate as options rather than replacements of in-person visits.

The state of artificial intelligence-based FDA-approved medical devices and algorithms: an online database.

At the beginning of the artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) era, the expectations are high, and experts foresee that AI/ML shows potential for diagnosing, managing and treating a wide variety of medical conditions. However, the obstacles for implementation of AI/ML in daily clinical practice are numerous, especially regarding the regulation of these technologies. Therefore, we provide an insight into the currently available AI/ML-based medical devices and algorithms that have been approved by the US Food & Drugs Administration (FDA). We aimed to raise awareness of the importance of regulatory bodies, clearly stating whether a medical device is AI/ML based or not. Cross-checking and validating all approvals, we identified 64 AI/ML based, FDA approved medical devices and algorithms. Out of those, only 29 (45%) mentioned any AI/ML-related expressions in the official FDA announcement. The majority (85.9%) was approved by the FDA with a 510(k) clearance, while 8 (12.5%) received de novo pathway clearance and one (1.6%) premarket approval (PMA) clearance. Most of these technologies, notably 30 (46.9%), 16 (25.0%), and 10 (15.6%) were developed for the fields of Radiology, Cardiology and Internal Medicine/General Practice respectively. We have launched the first comprehensive and open access database of strictly AI/ML-based medical technologies that have been approved by the FDA. The database will be constantly updated.