Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI)-augmented interventions are currently being rolled out across primary care, but how it affects health equity remains insufficiently understood. This qualitative study addresses this gap through an ethnographical inquiry based on 32 interviews and focus groups with stakeholders including commissioners, decision makers, AI developers, researchers, GPs and patient groups involved in the implementation of AI in English primary care. We took a sociotechnical perspective in order to assess how the stakeholders can improve health equity through the implementation process of AI within the wider system. We found that regulation and policy alone cannot guarantee equitable implementation of AI but can provide a framework to enable other stakeholders to take measures to promote equity: fostering a shared understanding of the causal mechanisms of AI and health equity, how to measure health equity, and how to share data necessary for equity promotion. Further, all stakeholders need to be on board for equitable implementation, and currently innovation leaves clinicians and patients behind. Capacity building is needed to achieve this, in particular at local commissioning and clinician level. Careful implementation and pragmatically focused research are needed to make AI in primary care capable of advancing health equity.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was conducted as part of the PhD project Artificial Intelligence and Health Inequities in Primary Care, by Alexander d'Elia. The PhD project is funded by Applied Research Collaboration Northwest Coast (ARC NWC), in turn funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).
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:
The research ethics committee at The University of Liverpool gave ethical approval for this work, reference number 10229.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors, with the exception of identifiable interview and participant data.
