MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

What Are the Mechanisms That Support Healthcare Professionals to Adopt Artificial Intelligence Into Practice?

2025· article· W7123349979 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher McCaig

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careCLARITYHealth informaticsInterdependenceInteroperabilityOperationalizationeHealthCorporate governanceThematic analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated across healthcare disciplines, promising enhanced accuracy, efficiency, and personalized care. However, clinical adoption remains inconsistent due to organizational, ethical, and behavioral barriers. Earlier evidence syntheses predate recent developments in generative AI, global policy regulation, and post-pandemic digital transformation.This updated Rapid Realist Review (RRR) sought to identify and explain the mechanisms that support healthcare professionals in adopting AI technologies into clinical practice, using contemporary evidence published between January 2021 and June 2025.A realist synthesis approach was used to uncover Context–Mechanism–Outcome (CMO) patterns explaining how adoption occurs across clinical and organizational contexts. Six databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, and Frontiers) were searched using predefined Boolean terms. Sixteen eligible studies, spanning empirical research, implementation frameworks, and conceptual analyses, were included following quality appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT 2022). Data were extracted into a Mechanism × Study Evidence Matrix and synthesized iteratively through thematic abstraction, supported by expert stakeholder consultation.Seven interdependent mechanisms were identified:1.Organizational readiness and leadership (strategic alignment, governance maturity)2.Trust, transparency, and explainability (clinician confidence and interpretability),3.Workflow compatibility and integration (EHR interoperability and task alignment),4.Ethical, legal, and governance clarity (fairness, privacy, accountability),5.Training, education, and AI literacy (competence and professional readiness),6.Digital ecosystem and infrastructure readiness (interoperability and data security), and7.Behavioral and cultural adaptation (identity, autonomy, and professional norms).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.123
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.326
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1230.326
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0160.017
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.195
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education→French-language works237,207→