The World Health Organization and other institutions are considering Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a technology that can potentially address some health system gaps, especially the reduction of global health inequalities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, because most AI-based health applications are developed and implemented in high-income countries, their use in LMICs contexts is recent and there is a lack of robust local evaluations to guide decision-making in low-resource settings. After discussing the potential benefits as well as the risks and challenges raised by AI-based health care, we propose five building blocks to guide the development and implementation of more responsible, sustainable, and inclusive AI health care technologies in LMICs.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is seen as a strategic lever to improve access, quality, and efficiency of care and services and to build learning and value-based health systems. Many studies have examined the technical performance of AI within an experimental context. These studies provide limited insights into the issues that its use in a real-world context of care and services raises. To help decision makers address these issues in a systemic and holistic manner, this viewpoint paper relies on the health technology assessment core model to contrast the expectations of the health sector toward the use of AI with the risks that should be mitigated for its responsible deployment. The analysis adopts the perspective of payers (ie, health system organizations and agencies) because of their central role in regulating, financing, and reimbursing novel technologies. This paper suggests that AI-based systems should be seen as a health system transformation lever, rather than a discrete set of technological devices. Their use could bring significant changes and impacts at several levels: technological, clinical, human and cognitive (patient and clinician), professional and organizational, economic, legal, and ethical. The assessment of AI’s value proposition should thus go beyond technical performance and cost logic by performing a holistic analysis of its value in a real-world context of care and services. To guide AI development, generate knowledge, and draw lessons that can be translated into action, the right political, regulatory, organizational, clinical, and technological conditions for innovation should be created as a first step.

Purpose: Artificial intelligence (AI) raises many expectations regarding its ability to profoundly transform health care delivery. There is an abundant literature on the technical performance of AI applications in many clinical fields (e.g. radiology, ophthalmology). This article aims to bring forward the importance of studying organizational readiness to integrate AI into health care delivery.Design/methodology/approach: The reflection is based on our experience in digital health technologies, diffusion of innovations and healthcare organizations and systems. It provides insights into why and how organizational readiness should be carefully considered.Findings: As an important step to ensure successful integration of AI and avoid unnecessary investments and costly failures, better consideration should be given to: (1) Needs and added-value assessment; (2) Workplace readiness: stakeholder acceptance and engagement; (3) Technology-organization alignment assessment and (4) Business plan: financing and investments. In summary, decision-makers and technology promoters should better address the complexity of AI and understand the systemic challenges raised by its implementation in healthcare organizations and systems.Originality/value: Few studies have focused on the organizational issues raised by the integration of AI into clinical routine. The current context is marked by a perplexing gap between the willingness of decision-makers and technology promoters to capitalize on AI applications to improve health care delivery and the reality on the ground, where it is difficult to initiate the changes needed to realize their full benefits while avoiding their negative impacts.

The magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic challenged societies around our globalized world. To contain the spread of the virus, unprecedented and drastic measures and policies were put in place by governments to manage an exceptional health care situation while maintaining other essential services. The responses of many governments showed a lack of preparedness to face this systemic and global health crisis. Drawing on field observations and available data on the first wave of the pandemic (mid-March to mid-May 2020) in Quebec (Canada), this article reviewed and discussed the successes and failures that characterized the management of COVID-19 in this province. Using the framework of Palagyi et al. on system preparedness toward emerging infectious diseases, we described and analyzed in a chronologically and narratively way: (1) how surveillance was structured; (2) how workforce issues were managed; (3) what infrastructures and medical supplies were made available; (4) what communication mechanisms were put in place; (5) what form of governance emerged; and (6) whether trust was established and maintained throughout the crisis. Our findings and observations stress that resilience and ability to adequately respond to a systemic and global crisis depend upon preexisting system-level characteristics and capacities at both the provincial and federal governance levels. By providing recommendations for policy and practice from a learning health system perspective, this paper contributes to the groundwork required for interdisciplinary research and genuine policy discussions to help health systems better prepare for future pandemics.

Information and communication technologies have transformed all sectors of society. The health sector is no exception to this trend. In light of “digital health”, we see multiplying numbers of web platforms and mobile health applications, often brought by new unconventional players who produce and offer services in non-linear and non-hierarchal ways, this by multiplying access points to services for people. Some speak of a “uberization” of healthcare. New realities and challenges have emerged from this paradigm, which question the abilities of health systems to cope with new business and economic models, governance of data and regulation. Countries must provide adequate responses so that digital health, based increasingly on disruptive technologies, can benefit for all.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are expected to “revolutionise” healthcare. However, despite their promises, their integration within healthcare organisations and systems remains limited. The objective of this study is to explore and understand the systemic challenges and implications of their integration in a leading Canadian academic hospital. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 stakeholders concerned by the integration of a large set of AI technologies within the organisation (e.g., managers, clinicians, researchers, patients, technology providers). Data were collected and analysed using the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, Sustainability (NASSS) framework. Results: Among enabling factors and conditions, our findings highlight: a supportive organisational culture and leadership leading to a coherent organisational innovation narrative; mutual trust and transparent communication between senior management and frontline teams; the presence of champions, translators, and boundary spanners for AI able to build bridges and trust; and the capacity to attract technical and clinical talents and expertise. Constraints and barriers include: contrasting definitions of the value of AI technologies and ways to measure such value; lack of real-life and context-based evidence; varying patients’ digital and health literacy capacities; misalignments between organisational dynamics, clinical and administrative processes, infrastructures, and AI technologies; lack of funding mechanisms covering the implementation, adaptation, and expertise required; challenges arising from practice change, new expertise development, and professional identities; lack of official professional, reimbursement, and insurance guidelines; lack of pre- and post-market approval legal and governance frameworks; diversity of the business and financing models for AI technologies; and misalignments between investors’ priorities and the needs and expectations of healthcare organisations and systems. Conclusion: Thanks to the multidimensional NASSS framework, this study provides original insights and a detailed learning base for analysing AI technologies in healthcare from a thorough socio-technical perspective. Our findings highlight the importance of considering the complexity characterising healthcare organisations and systems in current efforts to introduce AI technologies within clinical routines. This study adds to the existing literature and can inform decision-making towards a judicious, responsible, and sustainable integration of these technologies in healthcare organisations and systems.