Facilitating public involvement in research about healthcare AI: A scoping review of empirical methods.

OBJECTIVE: With the recent increase in research into public views on healthcare artificial intelligence (HCAI), the objective of this review is to examine the methods of empirical studies on public views on HCAI. We map how studies provided participants with information about HCAI, and we examine the extent to which studies framed publics as active contributors to HCAI governance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched 5 academic databases and Google Advanced for empirical studies investigating public views on HCAI. We extracted information including study aims, research instruments, and recommendations. RESULTS: Sixty-two studies were included. Most were quantitative (N = 42). Most (N = 47) reported providing participants with background information about HCAI. Despite this, studies often reported participants' lack of prior knowledge about HCAI as a limitation. Over three quarters (N = 48) of the studies made recommendations that envisaged public views being used to guide governance of AI. DISCUSSION: Provision of background information is an important component of facilitating research with publics on HCAI. The high proportion of studies reporting participants' lack of knowledge about HCAI as a limitation reflects the need for more guidance on how information should be presented. A minority of studies adopted technocratic positions that construed publics as passive beneficiaries of AI, rather than as active stakeholders in HCAI design and implementation. CONCLUSION: This review draws attention to how public roles in HCAI governance are constructed in empirical studies. To facilitate active participation, we recommend that research with publics on HCAI consider methodological designs that expose participants to diverse information sources.

Public views on ethical issues in healthcare artificial intelligence: protocol for a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, innovations in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the development of new healthcare AI (HCAI) technologies. Whilst some of these technologies show promise for improving the patient experience, ethicists have warned that AI can introduce and exacerbate harms and wrongs in healthcare. It is important that HCAI reflects the values that are important to people. However, involving patients and publics in research about AI ethics remains challenging due to relatively limited awareness of HCAI technologies. This scoping review aims to map how the existing literature on publics' views on HCAI addresses key issues in AI ethics and governance. METHODS: We developed a search query to conduct a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Academic Search Complete from January 2010 onwards. We will include primary research studies which document publics' or patients' views on machine learning HCAI technologies. A coding framework has been designed and will be used capture qualitative and quantitative data from the articles. Two reviewers will code a proportion of the included articles and any discrepancies will be discussed amongst the team, with changes made to the coding framework accordingly. Final results will be reported quantitatively and qualitatively, examining how each AI ethics issue has been addressed by the included studies. DISCUSSION: Consulting publics and patients about the ethics of HCAI technologies and innovations can offer important insights to those seeking to implement HCAI ethically and legitimately. This review will explore how ethical issues are addressed in literature examining publics' and patients' views on HCAI, with the aim of determining the extent to which publics' views on HCAI ethics have been addressed in existing research. This has the potential to support the development of implementation processes and regulation for HCAI that incorporates publics' values and perspectives.

Mapping precision public health definitions, terminology and applications: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Precision public health is an emerging and evolving field. Academic communities are divided regarding terminology and definitions, and what the scope, parameters and goals of precision public health should include. This protocol summarises the procedure for a scoping review which aims to identify and describe definitions, terminology, uses of the term and concepts in current literature. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review will be undertaken to gather existing literature on precision public health. We will search CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, and include all documents published in English that mention precision public health. A critical discourse analysis of the resulting papers will generate an account of precision public health terminology, definitions and uses of the term and the use and meaning of language. The analysis will occur in stages: first, descriptive information will be extracted and descriptive statistics will be calculated in order to characterise the literature. Second, occurrences of the phrase 'precision public health' and alternative terms in documents will be enumerated and mapped, and definitions collected. The third stage of discourse analysis will involve analysis and interpretation of the meaning of precision public health, including the composition, organisation and function of discourses. Finally, discourse analysis of alternative phrases to precision public health will be undertaken. This will include analysis and interpretation of what alternative phrases to precision public health are used to mean, how the phrases relate to each other and how they are compared or contrasted to precision public health. Results will be grouped under headings according to how they answer the research questions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval will be required for the scoping review. Results of the scoping review will be used as part of a doctoral thesis, and may be published in journals, conference proceedings or elsewhere.

Sharing Government Health Data With the Private Sector: Community Attitudes Survey.

BACKGROUND: The use of government health data for secondary purposes, such as monitoring the quality of hospital services, researching the health needs of populations, and testing how well new treatments work, is increasing. This increase in the secondary uses of health data has led to increased interest in what the public thinks about data sharing, in particular, the possibilities of sharing with the private sector for research and development. Although international evidence demonstrates broad public support for the secondary use of health data, this support does not extend to sharing health data with the private sector. If governments intend to share health data with the private sector, knowing what the public thinks will be important. This paper reports a national survey to explore public attitudes in Australia toward sharing health data with private companies for research on and development of therapeutic drugs and medical devices. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore public attitudes in Australia toward sharing government health data with the private sector. METHODS: A web-based survey tool was developed to assess attitudes about sharing government health data with the private sector. A market research company was employed to administer the web-based survey in June 2019. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 2537 individuals residing in Australia. Between 51.8% and 57.98% of all participants were willing to share their data, with slightly fewer in favor of sharing to improve health services (51.99%) and a slightly higher proportion in favor of sharing for research and development (57.98%). There was a preference for opt-in consent (53.44%) and broad support for placing conditions on sharing health information with private companies (62% to 91.99%). Wide variability was also observed in participants' views about the extent to which the private sector could be trusted and how well they would behave if entrusted with people's health information. In their qualitative responses, the participants noted concerns about private sector corporate interests, corruption, and profit making and expressed doubt about the Australian government's capacity to manage data sharing safely. The percentages presented are adjusted against the Australian population. CONCLUSIONS: This nationally representative survey provides preliminary evidence that Australians are uncertain about sharing their health data with the private sector. Although just over half of all the respondents supported sharing health data with the private sector, there was also strong support for strict conditions on sharing data and for opt-in consent and significant concerns about how well the private sector would manage government health data. Addressing public concern about sharing government health data with the private sector will require more and better engagement to build community understanding about how agencies can collect, share, protect, and use their personal data.

Australian Children's Exposure to, and Engagement With, Web-Based Marketing of Food and Drink Brands: Cross-sectional Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Food is one of the most frequently promoted commodities, and promoted foods are overwhelmingly unhealthy. Marketing normalizes unhealthy foods, creates a positive brand image, and encourages overconsumption. Limited research is available to describe the extent of food marketing to children on web-based media, and measuring actual exposure is challenging. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to monitor the extent of children's exposure to web-based media food marketing as an essential step in increasing the accountability of industry and governments to protect children. METHODS: Children aged 13-17 years were recruited from October 2018 to March 2019. Children recorded their mobile device screen for 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day any time they visited relevant web-based platforms. After each day, the participants uploaded the video files to a secure server. Promoted products were defined using the World Health Organization European Region nutrient profile model. RESULTS: The sample of 95 children uploaded 267.8 hours of video data. Children saw a median of 17.4 food promotions each hour on the internet. Considering the usual time spent on the internet on mobile devices, children would be exposed to a median of 168.4 food promotions on the web on mobile devices per week, 99.5 of which would not be permitted to be marketed based on nutrient profiling criteria. Most promotions (2613/4446, 58.77%) were peer endorsed and derived from third-party sources. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to brand content that is seemingly endorsed by peers or web-based communities likely heightens the effects of marketing on children. Regulations to protect children from this marketing must extend beyond paid advertising to paid content in posts generated through web-based communities and influencers.