Barriers to and Facilitators of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Health Care: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) use cases in health care are on the rise, with the potential to improve operational efficiency and care outcomes. However, the translation of AI into practical, everyday use has been limited, as its effectiveness relies on successful implementation and adoption by clinicians, patients, and other health care stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: As adoption is a key factor in the successful proliferation of an innovation, this scoping review aimed at presenting an overview of the barriers to and facilitators of AI adoption in health care. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using the guidance provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, and ScienceDirect databases were searched to identify publications in English that reported on the barriers to or facilitators of AI adoption in health care. This review focused on articles published between January 2011 and December 2023. The review did not have any limitations regarding the health care setting (hospital or community) or the population (patients, clinicians, physicians, or health care administrators). A thematic analysis was conducted on the selected articles to map factors associated with the barriers to and facilitators of AI adoption in health care. RESULTS: A total of 2514 articles were identified in the initial search. After title and abstract reviews, 50 (1.99%) articles were included in the final analysis. These articles were reviewed for the barriers to and facilitators of AI adoption in health care. Most articles were empirical studies, literature reviews, reports, and thought articles. Approximately 18 categories of barriers and facilitators were identified. These were organized sequentially to provide considerations for AI development, implementation, and the overall structure needed to facilitate adoption. CONCLUSIONS: The literature review revealed that trust is a significant catalyst of adoption, and it was found to be impacted by several barriers identified in this review. A governance structure can be a key facilitator, among others, in ensuring all the elements identified as barriers are addressed appropriately. The findings demonstrate that the implementation of AI in health care is still, in many ways, dependent on the establishment of regulatory and legal frameworks. Further research into a combination of governance and implementation frameworks, models, or theories to enhance trust that would specifically enable adoption is needed to provide the necessary guidance to those translating AI research into practice. Future research could also be expanded to include attempts at understanding patients' perspectives on complex, high-risk AI use cases and how the use of AI applications affects clinical practice and patient care, including sociotechnical considerations, as more algorithms are implemented in actual clinical environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.203 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".