AI in the Health Sector: Systematic Review of Key Skills for Future Health Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Technological advancements have significantly reshaped health care, introducing digital solutions that enhance diagnostics and patient care. Artificial intelligence (AI) stands out, offering unprecedented capabilities in data analysis, diagnostic support, and personalized medicine. However, effectively integrating AI into health care necessitates specialized competencies among professionals, an area still in its infancy in terms of comprehensive literature and formalized training programs. Objective: This systematic review aims to consolidate the essential skills and knowledge health care professionals need to integrate AI into their clinical practice effectively, according to the published literature. Methods: We conducted a systematic review, across databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, of peer-reviewed literature that directly explored the required skills for health care professionals to integrate AI into their practice, published in English or Spanish from 2018 onward. Studies that did not refer to specific skills or training in digital health were not included, discarding those that did not directly contribute to understanding the competencies necessary to integrate AI into health care practice. Bias in the examined works was evaluated following Cochrane's domain-based recommendations. Results: The initial database search yielded a total of 2457 articles. After deleting duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 37 articles were selected for full-text review. Out of these, only 7 met all the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The review identified a diverse range of skills and competencies, that we categorized into 14 key areas classified based on their frequency of appearance in the selected studies, including AI fundamentals, data analytics and management, and ethical considerations. Conclusions: Despite the broadening of search criteria to capture the evolving nature of AI in health care, the review underscores a significant gap in focused studies on the required competencies. Moreover, the review highlights the critical role of regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration in facilitating the adoption of AI technologies by establishing trust and standardizing algorithms. Key areas were identified for developing competencies among health care professionals for the implementation of AI, including: AI fundamentals knowledge (more focused on assessing the accuracy, reliability, and validity of AI algorithms than on more technical abilities such as programming or mathematics), data analysis skills (including data acquisition, cleaning, visualization, management, and governance), and ethical and legal considerations. In an AI-enhanced health care landscape, the ability to humanize patient care through effective communication is paramount. This balance ensures that while AI streamlines tasks and potentially increases patient interaction time, health care professionals maintain a focus on compassionate care, thereby leveraging AI to enhance, rather than detract from, the patient experience. .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".