Aim: To develop a consensus paper on the central points of an international invitational think‐tank on nursing and artificial intelligence (AI).Methods: We established the Nursing and Artificial Intelligence Leadership (NAIL) Collaborative, comprising interdisciplinary experts in AI development, biomedical ethics, AI in primary care, AI legal aspects, philosophy of AI in health, nursing practice, implementation science, leaders in health informatics practice and international health informatics groups, a representative of patients and the public, and the Chair of the ITU/WHO Focus Group on Artificial Intelligence for Health. The NAIL Collaborative convened at a 3‐day invitational think tank in autumn 2019. Activities included a pre‐event survey, expert presentations and working sessions to identify priority areas for action, opportunities and recommendations to address these. In this paper, we summarize the key discussion points and notes from the aforementioned activities.Implications for nursing: Nursing's limited current engagement with discourses on AI and health posts a risk that the profession is not part of the conversations that have potentially significant impacts on nursing practice.Conclusion: There are numerous gaps and a timely need for the nursing profession to be among the leaders and drivers of conversations around AI in health systems.Impact: We outline crucial gaps where focused effort is required for nursing to take a leadership role in shaping AI use in health systems. Three priorities were identified that need to be addressed in the near future: (a) Nurses must understand the relationship between the data they collect and AI technologies they use; (b) Nurses need to be meaningfully involved in all stages of AI: from development to implementation; and (c) There is a substantial untapped and an unexplored potential for nursing to contribute to the development of AI technologies for global health and humanitarian efforts.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are changing our world through their impact on sectors including health care, education, employment, finance, and law. AI systems are developed using data that reflect the implicit and explicit biases of society, and there are significant concerns about how the predictive models in AI systems amplify inequity, privilege, and power in society. The widespread applications of AI have led to mainstream discourse about how AI systems are perpetuating racism, sexism, and classism; yet, concerns about ageism have been largely absent in the AI bias literature. Given the globally aging population and proliferation of AI, there is a need to critically examine the presence of age-related bias in AI systems. This forum article discusses ageism in AI systems and introduces a conceptual model that outlines intersecting pathways of technology development that can produce and reinforce digital ageism in AI systems. We also describe the broader ethical and legal implications and considerations for future directions in digital ageism research to advance knowledge in the field and deepen our understanding of how ageism in AI is fostered by broader cycles of injustice.

Background: The successful integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice is contingent upon physicians’ comprehension of AI principles and its applications. Therefore, it is essential for medical education curricula to incorporate AI topics and concepts, providing future physicians with the foundational knowledge and skills needed. However, there is a knowledge gap in the current understanding and availability of structured AI curriculum frameworks tailored for medical education, which serve as vital guides for instructing and facilitating the learning process. Objective: The overall aim of this study is to synthesize knowledge from the literature on curriculum frameworks and current educational programs that focus on the teaching and learning of AI for medical students, residents, and practicing physicians. Methods: We followed a validated framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance for scoping reviews. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from 2000 to May 2023 in the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Scopus as well as the gray literature. Papers were limited to English and French languages. This review included papers that describe curriculum frameworks for teaching and learning AI in medicine, irrespective of country. All types of papers and study designs were included, except conference abstracts and protocols. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts, read the full texts, and extracted data using a validated data extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for reporting the results. Results: Of the 5104 papers screened, 21 papers relevant to our eligibility criteria were identified. In total, 90% (19/21) of the papers altogether described 30 current or previously offered educational programs, and 10% (2/21) of the papers described elements of a curriculum framework. One framework describes a general approach to integrating AI curricula throughout the medical learning continuum and another describes a core curriculum for AI in ophthalmology. No papers described a theory, pedagogy, or framework that guided the educational programs. Conclusions: This review synthesizes recent advancements in AI curriculum frameworks and educational programs within the domain of medical education. To build on this foundation, future researchers are encouraged to engage in a multidisciplinary approach to curriculum redesign. In addition, it is encouraged to initiate dialogues on the integration of AI into medical curriculum planning and to investigate the development, deployment, and appraisal of these innovative educational programs. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.11124/JBIES-22-00374

Background: Research on the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into community-based primary health care (CBPHC) has highlighted several advantages and disadvantages in practice regarding, for example, facilitating diagnosis and disease management, as well as doubts concerning the unintended harmful effects of this integration. However, there is a lack of evidence about a comprehensive knowledge synthesis that could shed light on AI systems tested or implemented in CBPHC. Objective: We intended to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI in CBPHC settings. Methods: We conducted a systematic scoping review informed by an earlier study and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review framework and reported the findings according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Reviews) reporting guidelines. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from the date of inception until February 2020, in seven bibliographic databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore. The selected studies considered all populations who provide and receive care in CBPHC settings, AI interventions that had been implemented, tested, or both, and assessed outcomes related to patients, health care providers, or CBPHC systems. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the identified records, read the selected full texts, and extracted data from the included studies using a validated extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. A third reviewer also validated all the extracted data. Results: We retrieved 22,113 documents. After the removal of duplicates, 16,870 documents were screened, and 90 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Machine learning (ML) (41/90, 45%), natural language processing (NLP) (24/90, 27%), and expert systems (17/90, 19%) were the most commonly studied AI interventions. These were primarily implemented for diagnosis, detection, or surveillance purposes. Neural networks (ie, convolutional neural networks and abductive networks) demonstrated the highest accuracy, considering the given database for the given clinical task. The risk of bias in diagnosis or prognosis studies was the lowest in the participant category (4/49, 4%) and the highest in the outcome category (22/49, 45%). Conclusions: We observed variabilities in reporting the participants, types of AI methods, analyses, and outcomes, and highlighted the large gap in the effective development and implementation of AI in CBPHC. Further studies are needed to efficiently guide the development and implementation of AI interventions in CBPHC settings.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results in various fields of medicine. It has the potential to facilitate shared decision making (SDM). However, there is no comprehensive mapping of how AI may be used for SDM. Objective: We aimed to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI to facilitate SDM. Methods: We performed a scoping review informed by the methodological framework proposed by Levac et al, modifications to the original Arksey and O'Malley framework of a scoping review, and the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review framework. We reported our results based on the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting guideline. At the identification stage, an information specialist performed a comprehensive search of 6 electronic databases from their inception to May 2021. The inclusion criteria were: all populations; all AI interventions that were used to facilitate SDM, and if the AI intervention was not used for the decision-making point in SDM, it was excluded; any outcome related to patients, health care providers, or health care systems; studies in any health care setting, only studies published in the English language, and all study types. Overall, 2 reviewers independently performed the study selection process and extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. A descriptive analysis was performed. Results: The search process yielded 1445 records. After removing duplicates, 894 documents were screened, and 6 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Overall, 2 of them were conducted in North America, 2 in Europe, 1 in Australia, and 1 in Asia. Most articles were published after 2017. Overall, 3 articles focused on primary care, and 3 articles focused on secondary care. All studies used machine learning methods. Moreover, 3 articles included health care providers in the validation stage of the AI intervention, and 1 article included both health care providers and patients in clinical validation, but none of the articles included health care providers or patients in the design and development of the AI intervention. All used AI to support SDM by providing clinical recommendations or predictions. Conclusions: Evidence of the use of AI in SDM is in its infancy. We found AI supporting SDM in similar ways across the included articles. We observed a lack of emphasis on patients’ values and preferences, as well as poor reporting of AI interventions, resulting in a lack of clarity about different aspects. Little effort was made to address the topics of explainability of AI interventions and to include end-users in the design and development of the interventions. Further efforts are required to strengthen and standardize the use of AI in different steps of SDM and to evaluate its impact on various decisions, populations, and settings.