6.Q. Round table: Artificial Intelligence in healthcare: navigating ethically with equity and workforce empowerment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Artificial Intelligence (AI) is emerging as a pivotal technology with vast promises for healthcare. However, integrating AI into clinical and public health settings must be cautiously approached to ensure that it does not inadvertently exacerbate existing health system problems. The healthcare workers, already under severe stress, could view AI as a threat to job security rather than as a support mechanism. Moreover, past experiences with digital transformations, such as Electronic Health Records, have shown that technological integration can sometimes increase rather than decrease the burden on healthcare workers, leading to burnout and dissatisfaction, and thus worsening the healthcare workforce crisis. Furthermore, equity and ethical considerations are paramount in the deployment of AI in healthcare. Data privacy, patient consent, and algorithmic bias must be addressed to ensure that AI applications are designed to support and enhance human decision-making that is sensitive to the social determinants of health and accountable to equity and social inclusion, to the needs and rights of the healthcare workforce, and the dignity of the patients and populations. While AI presents significant opportunities for health systems and healthcare workers, there is a lack of knowledge, evidence-based policies, and ethical frameworks that support equitable and human-centred approaches to AI implementation. Objectives This round table workshop aligns three major public health challenges: the integration of AI in health systems, the global healthcare workforce crisis, and the improvement of equity and equality. It critically explores capacity building for AI, equity in AI implementation, and regulatory measures for ethical and responsible AI deployment, addressing the following major questions: What are the critical impacts of AI on the healthcare workforce? How can the healthcare workforce be effectively upskilled and supported to adapt to the changes brought by AI technologies? What regulatory frameworks and governance models are necessary to ensure AI’s safe and ethical implementation in healthcare, that is also sensitive to equity, gender equality and the needs of minority groups? Finally, what actionable steps and leadership can public health take to implement AI technologies while addressing the healthcare workforce needs, equity issues, and ethical guidelines? The panellists will illuminate these questions from different disciplinary approaches, helping us to disentangle complexity and to build capacity for evidence-based and socially inclusive AI policies. The workshop contributes to better understand the risks and benefits of AI. It seeks to advance knowledge exchange of good practice experiences and effective implementation. Key messages • The effects of AI on the healthcare workforce must be monitored and strategies adapted to mitigate the healthcare workforce crisis and to upskill and empower healthcare workers. • There is a need for human-centred and ethically responsive AI implementation and governance measures that support equity, gender equality, and diversity in healthcare settings. Speakers/Panelists Abi Sriharan Schulich School of Business York University, York, Canada Kasia Czabanowska Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands Bernadette Kumar Migration Health Unit, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway Marius-Ionuț Ungureanu Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Farhang Tahzib Faculty of Public Health, Haywards heath, UK
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,019 | 0,017 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,153 | 0,061 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».