Dataset Information

The Economic Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Positive economic impact is a key decision factor in making the case for or against investing in an artificial intelligence (AI) solution in the health care industry. It is most relevant for the care provider and insurer as well as for the pharmaceutical and medical technology sectors. Although the broad economic impact of digital health solutions in general has been assessed many times in literature and the benefit for patients and society has also been analyzed, the specific economic impact of AI in health care has been addressed only sporadically. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to systematically review and summarize the cost-effectiveness studies dedicated to AI in health care and to assess whether they meet the established quality criteria. METHODS:In a first step, the quality criteria for economic impact studies were defined based on the established and adapted criteria schemes for cost impact assessments. In a second step, a systematic literature review based on qualitative and quantitative inclusion and exclusion criteria was conducted to identify relevant publications for an in-depth analysis of the economic impact assessment. In a final step, the quality of the identified economic impact studies was evaluated based on the defined quality criteria for cost-effectiveness studies. RESULTS:Very few publications have thoroughly addressed the economic impact assessment, and the economic assessment quality of the reviewed publications on AI shows severe methodological deficits. Only 6 out of 66 publications could be included in the second step of the analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Out of these 6 studies, none comprised a methodologically complete cost impact analysis. There are two areas for improvement in future studies. First, the initial investment and operational costs for the AI infrastructure and service need to be included. Second, alternatives to achieve similar impact must be evaluated to provide a comprehensive comparison. CONCLUSIONS:This systematic literature analysis proved that the existing impact assessments show methodological deficits and that upcoming evaluations require more comprehensive economic analyses to enable economic decisions for or against implementing AI technology in health care.

SUBMITTER: Wolff J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7059082 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Economic Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Systematic Review.

Wolff Justus J Pauling Josch J Keck Andreas A Baumbach Jan J

Journal of medical Internet research 20200220 2

<h4>Background</h4>Positive economic impact is a key decision factor in making the case for or against investing in an artificial intelligence (AI) solution in the health care industry. It is most relevant for the care provider and insurer as well as for the pharmaceutical and medical technology sectors. Although the broad economic impact of digital health solutions in general has been assessed many times in literature and the benefit for patients and society has also been analyzed, the specific ...[more]

PMID: 32130134

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe high demand for health care services and the growing capability of artificial intelligence have led to the development of conversational agents designed to support a variety of health-related activities, including behavior change, treatment support, health monitoring, training, triage, and screening support. Automation of these tasks could free clinicians to focus on more complex work and increase the accessibility to health care services for the public. An overarching assessment of the acceptability, usability, and effectiveness of these agents in health care is needed to collate the evidence so that future development can target areas for improvement and potential for sustainable adoption.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness and usability of conversational agents in health care and identify the elements that users like and dislike to inform future research and development of these agents.MethodsPubMed, Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science, and the Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library were systematically searched for articles published since 2008 that evaluated unconstrained natural language processing conversational agents used in health care. EndNote (version X9, Clarivate Analytics) reference management software was used for initial screening, and full-text screening was conducted by 1 reviewer. Data were extracted, and the risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and validated by another.ResultsA total of 31 studies were selected and included a variety of conversational agents, including 14 chatbots (2 of which were voice chatbots), 6 embodied conversational agents (3 of which were interactive voice response calls, virtual patients, and speech recognition screening systems), 1 contextual question-answering agent, and 1 voice recognition triage system. Overall, the evidence reported was mostly positive or mixed. Usability and satisfaction performed well (27/30 and 26/31), and positive or mixed effectiveness was found in three-quarters of the studies (23/30). However, there were several limitations of the agents highlighted in specific qualitative feedback.ConclusionsThe studies generally reported positive or mixed evidence for the effectiveness, usability, and satisfactoriness of the conversational agents investigated, but qualitative user perceptions were more mixed. The quality of many of the studies was limited, and improved study design and reporting are necessary to more accurately evaluate the usefulness of the agents in health care and identify key areas for improvement. Further research should also analyze the cost-effectiveness, privacy, and security of the agents.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/16934.

Project description:BackgroundAs the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care increases, it will become increasingly crucial to involve health care professionals (HCPs) in developing, validating, and implementing AI-enabled technologies. However, because of a lack of AI literacy, most HCPs are not adequately prepared for this revolution. This is a significant barrier to adopting and implementing AI that will affect patients. In addition, the limited existing AI education programs face barriers to development and implementation at various levels of medical education.ObjectiveWith a view to informing future AI education programs for HCPs, this scoping review aims to provide an overview of the types of current or past AI education programs that pertains to the programs' curricular content, modes of delivery, critical implementation factors for education delivery, and outcomes used to assess the programs' effectiveness.MethodsAfter the creation of a search strategy and keyword searches, a 2-stage screening process was conducted by 2 independent reviewers to determine study eligibility. When consensus was not reached, the conflict was resolved by consulting a third reviewer. This process consisted of a title and abstract scan and a full-text review. The articles were included if they discussed an actual training program or educational intervention, or a potential training program or educational intervention and the desired content to be covered, focused on AI, and were designed or intended for HCPs (at any stage of their career).ResultsOf the 10,094 unique citations scanned, 41 (0.41%) studies relevant to our eligibility criteria were identified. Among the 41 included studies, 10 (24%) described 13 unique programs and 31 (76%) discussed recommended curricular content. The curricular content of the unique programs ranged from AI use, AI interpretation, and cultivating skills to explain results derived from AI algorithms. The curricular topics were categorized into three main domains: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective.ConclusionsThis review provides an overview of the current landscape of AI in medical education and highlights the skills and competencies required by HCPs to effectively use AI in enhancing the quality of care and optimizing patient outcomes. Future education efforts should focus on the development of regulatory strategies, a multidisciplinary approach to curriculum redesign, a competency-based curriculum, and patient-clinician interaction.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-driven serious games have been used in health care to offer a customizable and immersive experience. Summarizing the features of the current AI-driven serious games is very important to explore how they have been developed and used and their current state to plan on how to leverage them in the current and future health care needs.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the features of AI-driven serious games in health care as reported by previous research.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to achieve the abovementioned objective. The most popular databases in the information technology and health fields (ie, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and Google Scholar) were searched using keywords related to serious games and AI. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection process. Three reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. A narrative approach was used for data synthesis.ResultsThe search process returned 1470 records. Of these 1470 records, 46 (31.29%) met all eligibility criteria. A total of 64 different serious games were found in the included studies. Motor impairment was the most common health condition targeted by these serious games. Serious games were used for rehabilitation in most of the studies. The most common genres of serious games were role-playing games, puzzle games, and platform games. Unity was the most prominent game engine used to develop serious games. PCs were the most common platform used to play serious games. The most common algorithm used in the included studies was support vector machine. The most common purposes of AI were the detection of disease and the evaluation of user performance. The size of the data set ranged from 36 to 795,600. The most common validation techniques used in the included studies were k-fold cross-validation and training-test split validation. Accuracy was the most commonly used metric for evaluating the performance of AI models.ConclusionsThe last decade witnessed an increase in the development of AI-driven serious games for health care purposes, targeting various health conditions, and leveraging multiple AI algorithms; this rising trend is expected to continue for years to come. Although the evidence uncovered in this study shows promising applications of AI-driven serious games, larger and more rigorous, diverse, and robust studies may be needed to examine the efficacy and effectiveness of AI-driven serious games in different populations with different health conditions.

Project description:BackgroundResearch on the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into community-based primary health care (CBPHC) has highlighted several advantages and disadvantages in practice regarding, for example, facilitating diagnosis and disease management, as well as doubts concerning the unintended harmful effects of this integration. However, there is a lack of evidence about a comprehensive knowledge synthesis that could shed light on AI systems tested or implemented in CBPHC.ObjectiveWe intended to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI in CBPHC settings.MethodsWe conducted a systematic scoping review informed by an earlier study and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review framework and reported the findings according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Reviews) reporting guidelines. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from the date of inception until February 2020, in seven bibliographic databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore. The selected studies considered all populations who provide and receive care in CBPHC settings, AI interventions that had been implemented, tested, or both, and assessed outcomes related to patients, health care providers, or CBPHC systems. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the identified records, read the selected full texts, and extracted data from the included studies using a validated extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. A third reviewer also validated all the extracted data.ResultsWe retrieved 22,113 documents. After the removal of duplicates, 16,870 documents were screened, and 90 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Machine learning (ML) (41/90, 45%), natural language processing (NLP) (24/90, 27%), and expert systems (17/90, 19%) were the most commonly studied AI interventions. These were primarily implemented for diagnosis, detection, or surveillance purposes. Neural networks (ie, convolutional neural networks and abductive networks) demonstrated the highest accuracy, considering the given database for the given clinical task. The risk of bias in diagnosis or prognosis studies was the lowest in the participant category (4/49, 4%) and the highest in the outcome category (22/49, 45%).ConclusionsWe observed variabilities in reporting the participants, types of AI methods, analyses, and outcomes, and highlighted the large gap in the effective development and implementation of AI in CBPHC. Further studies are needed to efficiently guide the development and implementation of AI interventions in CBPHC settings.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbots can offer personalized, engaging, and on-demand health promotion interventions.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and intervention characteristics of AI chatbots for promoting health behavior change.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted in 7 bibliographic databases (PubMed, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, and JMIR publications) for empirical articles published from 1980 to 2022 that evaluated the feasibility or efficacy of AI chatbots for behavior change. The screening, extraction, and analysis of the identified articles were performed by following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.ResultsOf the 15 included studies, several demonstrated the high efficacy of AI chatbots in promoting healthy lifestyles (n=6, 40%), smoking cessation (n=4, 27%), treatment or medication adherence (n=2, 13%), and reduction in substance misuse (n=1, 7%). However, there were mixed results regarding feasibility, acceptability, and usability. Selected behavior change theories and expert consultation were used to develop the behavior change strategies of AI chatbots, including goal setting, monitoring, real-time reinforcement or feedback, and on-demand support. Real-time user-chatbot interaction data, such as user preferences and behavioral performance, were collected on the chatbot platform to identify ways of providing personalized services. The AI chatbots demonstrated potential for scalability by deployment through accessible devices and platforms (eg, smartphones and Facebook Messenger). The participants also reported that AI chatbots offered a nonjudgmental space for communicating sensitive information. However, the reported results need to be interpreted with caution because of the moderate to high risk of internal validity, insufficient description of AI techniques, and limitation for generalizability.ConclusionsAI chatbots have demonstrated the efficacy of health behavior change interventions among large and diverse populations; however, future studies need to adopt robust randomized control trials to establish definitive conclusions.

Project description:BackgroundSignificant efforts have been made to develop artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for health care improvement. Despite the enthusiasm, health care professionals still struggle to implement AI in their daily practice.ObjectiveThis paper aims to identify the implementation frameworks used to understand the application of AI in health care practice.MethodsA scoping review was conducted using the Cochrane, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases to identify publications that reported frameworks, models, and theories concerning AI implementation in health care. This review focused on studies published in English and investigating AI implementation in health care since 2000. A total of 2541 unique publications were retrieved from the databases and screened on titles and abstracts by 2 independent reviewers. Selected articles were thematically analyzed against the Nilsen taxonomy of implementation frameworks, and the Greenhalgh framework for the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) of health care technologies.ResultsIn total, 7 articles met all eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review, and 2 articles included formal frameworks that directly addressed AI implementation, whereas the other articles provided limited descriptions of elements influencing implementation. Collectively, the 7 articles identified elements that aligned with all the NASSS domains, but no single article comprehensively considered the factors known to influence technology implementation. New domains were identified, including dependency on data input and existing processes, shared decision-making, the role of human oversight, and ethics of population impact and inequality, suggesting that existing frameworks do not fully consider the unique needs of AI implementation.ConclusionsThis literature review demonstrates that understanding how to implement AI in health care practice is still in its early stages of development. Our findings suggest that further research is needed to provide the knowledge necessary to develop implementation frameworks to guide the future implementation of AI in clinical practice and highlight the opportunity to draw on existing knowledge from the field of implementation science.

Project description:BackgroundThe field of oncology is at the forefront of advances in artificial intelligence (AI) in health care, providing an opportunity to examine the early integration of these technologies in clinical research and patient care. Hope that AI will revolutionize health care delivery and improve clinical outcomes has been accompanied by concerns about the impact of these technologies on health equity.ObjectiveWe aimed to conduct a scoping review of the literature to address the question, "What are the current and potential impacts of AI technologies on health equity in oncology?"MethodsFollowing PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines for scoping reviews, we systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from January 2000 to August 2021 for records engaging with key concepts of AI, health equity, and oncology. We included all English-language articles that engaged with the 3 key concepts. Articles were analyzed qualitatively for themes pertaining to the influence of AI on health equity in oncology.ResultsOf the 14,011 records, 133 (0.95%) identified from our review were included. We identified 3 general themes in the literature: the use of AI to reduce health care disparities (58/133, 43.6%), concerns surrounding AI technologies and bias (16/133, 12.1%), and the use of AI to examine biological and social determinants of health (55/133, 41.4%). A total of 3% (4/133) of articles focused on many of these themes.ConclusionsOur scoping review revealed 3 main themes on the impact of AI on health equity in oncology, which relate to AI's ability to help address health disparities, its potential to mitigate or exacerbate bias, and its capability to help elucidate determinants of health. Gaps in the literature included a lack of discussion of ethical challenges with the application of AI technologies in low- and middle-income countries, lack of discussion of problems of bias in AI algorithms, and a lack of justification for the use of AI technologies over traditional statistical methods to address specific research questions in oncology. Our review highlights a need to address these gaps to ensure a more equitable integration of AI in cancer research and clinical practice. The limitations of our study include its exploratory nature, its focus on oncology as opposed to all health care sectors, and its analysis of solely English-language articles.

Project description:BackgroundDespite advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) to develop prediction and classification models, little research has been devoted to real-world translations with a user-centered design approach. AI development studies in the health care context have often ignored two critical factors of ecological validity and human cognition, creating challenges at the interface with clinicians and the clinical environment.ObjectiveThe aim of this literature review was to investigate the contributions made by major human factors communities in health care AI applications. This review also discusses emerging research gaps, and provides future research directions to facilitate a safer and user-centered integration of AI into the clinical workflow.MethodsWe performed an extensive mapping review to capture all relevant articles published within the last 10 years in the major human factors journals and conference proceedings listed in the "Human Factors and Ergonomics" category of the Scopus Master List. In each published volume, we searched for studies reporting qualitative or quantitative findings in the context of AI in health care. Studies are discussed based on the key principles such as evaluating workload, usability, trust in technology, perception, and user-centered design.ResultsForty-eight articles were included in the final review. Most of the studies emphasized user perception, the usability of AI-based devices or technologies, cognitive workload, and user's trust in AI. The review revealed a nascent but growing body of literature focusing on augmenting health care AI; however, little effort has been made to ensure ecological validity with user-centered design approaches. Moreover, few studies (n=5 against clinical/baseline standards, n=5 against clinicians) compared their AI models against a standard measure.ConclusionsHuman factors researchers should actively be part of efforts in AI design and implementation, as well as dynamic assessments of AI systems' effects on interaction, workflow, and patient outcomes. An AI system is part of a greater sociotechnical system. Investigators with human factors and ergonomics expertise are essential when defining the dynamic interaction of AI within each element, process, and result of the work system.

Dataset Information

The Economic Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Systematic Review.

Publications

The Economic Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets