Integrating artificial intelligence in community-based diabetes care programmes: enhancing inclusiveness, diversity, equity and accessibility a realist review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Marginalised populations-such as racialised groups, low-income individuals, newcomers and those in rural areas-disproportionately experience severe diabetes-related complications, including diabetic foot ulcers, retinopathy and amputations, due to systemic inequities and limited access to care. Although community-based programmes address cultural and accessibility barriers, their isolation from mainstream healthcare systems leads to fragmented care and missed opportunities for early intervention.Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered technologies can enhance accessibility and personalisation, particularly for underserved populations. However, integrating AI into community settings remains underexplored, with socioethical concerns around inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility requiring urgent attention.This realist review aims to examine how, why and under what circumstances AI applications can be effectively integrated into community-based diabetic care for marginalised populations. The review will develop a programme theory to guide ethical, inclusive and effective AI implementation to ensure AI-driven innovations address health disparities and promote culturally sensitive, accessible care for all. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Reviews guidelines, this realist review will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane library, Google Scholar and Scopus, alongside grey literature. A two-stage screening process will identify eligible studies, and data extraction will use a developed tool. Synthesis will employ realist logic, analysing relationships between contexts (eg, organisational capacity), mechanisms (eg, AI functionalities) and outcomes (eg, reduced disparities). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for conducting this realist review. Ethics approval will be obtained from the University of Toronto; however, following the completion of the realist review for patients and community members' engagement to support knowledge mobilisation and dissemination to ensure practical application and reciprocity. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: This protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42025636284).
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 | 0.122 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.011 |
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".