Jacqueline K Kueper1, Amanda L Terry2, Merrick Zwarenstein3, Daniel J Lizotte4. 1. Departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Computer Science, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada jkueper@uwo.ca. 2. Departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Family Medicine, Schulich Interfaculty Program in Public Health, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. 3. Departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Family Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. 4. Departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Computer Science, Schulich Interfaculty Program in Public Health, Statistical & Actuarial Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Rapid increases in technology and data motivate the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to primary care, but no comprehensive review exists to guide these efforts. Our objective was to assess the nature and extent of the body of research on AI for primary care. METHODS: We performed a scoping review, searching 11 published or gray literature databases with terms pertaining to AI (eg, machine learning, bayes* network) and primary care (eg, general pract*, nurse). We performed title and abstract and then full-text screening using Covidence. Studies had to involve research, include both AI and primary care, and be published in Eng-lish. We extracted data and summarized studies by 7 attributes: purpose(s); author appointment(s); primary care function(s); intended end user(s); health condition(s); geographic location of data source; and AI subfield(s). RESULTS: Of 5,515 unique documents, 405 met eligibility criteria. The body of research focused on developing or modifying AI methods (66.7%) to support physician diagnostic or treatment recommendations (36.5% and 13.8%), for chronic conditions, using data from higher-income countries. Few studies (14.1%) had even a single author with a primary care appointment. The predominant AI subfields were supervised machine learning (40.0%) and expert systems (22.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Research on AI for primary care is at an early stage of maturity. For the field to progress, more interdisciplinary research teams with end-user engagement and evaluation studies are needed.
PURPOSE: Rapid increases in technology and data motivate the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to primary care, but no comprehensive review exists to guide these efforts. Our objective was to assess the nature and extent of the body of research on AI for primary care. METHODS: We performed a scoping review, searching 11 published or gray literature databases with terms pertaining to AI (eg, machine learning, bayes* network) and primary care (eg, general pract*, nurse). We performed title and abstract and then full-text screening using Covidence. Studies had to involve research, include both AI and primary care, and be published in Eng-lish. We extracted data and summarized studies by 7 attributes: purpose(s); author appointment(s); primary care function(s); intended end user(s); health condition(s); geographic location of data source; and AI subfield(s). RESULTS: Of 5,515 unique documents, 405 met eligibility criteria. The body of research focused on developing or modifying AI methods (66.7%) to support physician diagnostic or treatment recommendations (36.5% and 13.8%), for chronic conditions, using data from higher-income countries. Few studies (14.1%) had even a single author with a primary care appointment. The predominant AI subfields were supervised machine learning (40.0%) and expert systems (22.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Research on AI for primary care is at an early stage of maturity. For the field to progress, more interdisciplinary research teams with end-user engagement and evaluation studies are needed.
Keywords:
artificial intelligence; big data; data mining; decision support; diagnosis; electronic health records; family medicine; health informatics; health information technology; primary care; scoping review; treatment
Authors: Edward K Chang; Christine Y Yu; Robin Clarke; Andrew Hackbarth; Timothy Sanders; Eric Esrailian; Daniel W Hommes; Bruce A Runyon Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2016 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Malvika Sharma; Carl Savage; Monika Nair; Ingrid Larsson; Petra Svedberg; Jens M Nygren Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-10-05 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Hanna Glock; Veronica Milos Nymberg; Beata Borgström Bolmsjö; Jonas Holm; Susanna Calling; Moa Wolff; Miriam Pikkemaat Journal: Int J Gen Med Date: 2021-12-01
Authors: Jacqueline K Kueper; Amanda Terry; Ravninder Bahniwal; Leslie Meredith; Ron Beleno; Judith Belle Brown; Janet Dang; Daniel Leger; Scott McKay; Andrew Pinto; Bridget L Ryan; Merrick Zwarenstein; Daniel J Lizotte Journal: BMJ Health Care Inform Date: 2022-01
Authors: Amanda L Terry; Jacqueline K Kueper; Ron Beleno; Judith Belle Brown; Sonny Cejic; Janet Dang; Daniel Leger; Scott McKay; Leslie Meredith; Andrew D Pinto; Bridget L Ryan; Moira Stewart; Merrick Zwarenstein; Daniel J Lizotte Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-09-09 Impact factor: 3.298
Authors: Stephanie Garies; Phoebe Ng; James A Dickinson; Terrence McDonald; Maeve O'Beirne; Kerry A McBrien; Catherine Eastwood; Danielle A Southern; Neil Drummond; Hude Quan Journal: Healthc Policy Date: 2022-08