Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Implementation Science for AI Integration in Digital Health Systems
0
Zitationen
6
Autoren
2026
Jahr
Abstract
We systematically reviewed studies of implementation science frameworks used for healthcare AI deployment (2020-2026). Following PRISMA 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus and included 87 empirical studies. CFIR was most common (42.5%), followed by RE-AIM (28.7%) and EPIS (18.4%). The most frequent barriers were data infrastructure limitations (67.8%), clinician trust deficits (58.6%), and regulatory uncertainty (52.9%). Implementation success was associated with organizational readiness (r=0.64, p<0.001) and leadership engagement (OR=2.34, 95% CI 1.89-2.91). Generative AI deployments showed higher clinician adoption (78.3% vs 62.1%) but required additional governance for reliability and hallucination risk. Overall, successful AI implementation depends on framework-guided planning, active leadership, and long-term governance for sustainability. Full Text Available: Implementation Science for AI Integration in Digital Health Systems
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.422 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.300 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.734 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.781 Zit.
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2018 · 5.519 Zit.