Abstract
The use of data-driven technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) is growing in healthcare. However, the proliferation of healthcare AI tools has outpaced regulatory frameworks, accountability measures, and governance standards to ensure safe, effective, and equitable use. To address these gaps and tackle a common challenge faced by healthcare delivery organizations, a case-based workshop was organized, and a framework was developed to evaluate the potential impact of implementing an AI solution on health equity. The Health Equity Across the AI Lifecycle (HEAAL) is co-designed with extensive engagement of clinical, operational, technical, and regulatory leaders across healthcare delivery organizations and ecosystem partners in the US. It assesses 5 equity assessment domains– accountability, fairness, fitness for purpose, reliability and validity, and transparency–across the span of eight key decision points in the AI adoption lifecycle. It is a process-oriented framework containing 37 step-by-step procedures for evaluating an existing AI solution and 34 procedures for evaluating a new AI solution in total. Within each procedure, it identifies relevant key stakeholders and data sources used to conduct the procedure. HEAAL guides how healthcare delivery organizations may mitigate the potential risk of AI solutions worsening health inequities. It also informs how much resources and support are required to assess the potential impact of AI solutions on health inequities.
Author summary In healthcare, the use of data-driven technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) is increasing. However, the lack of robust regulations and standards poses a challenge to their safe and equitable use. To bridge this gap, we brought together healthcare leaders from various backgrounds in a workshop and developed the Health Equity Across the AI Lifecycle (HEAAL) framework. HEAAL evaluates how the use of AI might affect health equity. It examines five crucial domains—accountability, fairness, fitness for purpose, reliability and validity, and transparency—across eight key decision points in the AI adoption process. HEAAL offers tailored procedures for assessing both existing and new AI solutions, along with relevant stakeholders and data sources. By providing step-by-step guidance, HEAAL empowers healthcare delivery organizations to comprehend and mitigate the risk of AI exacerbating health inequities.
Competing Interest Statement
WR, MG, SB, and MPS have declared co-inventing software at Duke University licensed by Duke University to external commercial entities Clinetic, Cohere Med, Kela Health, and Fullsteam Health. MG, SB, and MPS also own equity in Clinetic. No other competing interests were declared.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. The funder did not play a role in the writing, review, or submission of this manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB of Duke University Health System waived ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The manuscript, supplemental files, and competing interests statement have been updated.
Data Availability
No quantitative data were used or generated for this study.
