Equity and AI governance at academic medical centers.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Paige Nong, Reema Hamasha, Jodyn Platt
{"title":"Equity and AI governance at academic medical centers.","authors":"Paige Nong, Reema Hamasha, Jodyn Platt","doi":"10.37765/ajmc.2024.89555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To understand whether and how equity is considered in artificial intelligence/machine learning governance processes at academic medical centers.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Qualitative analysis of interview data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We created a database of academic medical centers from the full list of Association of American Medical Colleges hospital and health system members in 2022. Stratifying by census region and restricting to nonfederal and nonspecialty centers, we recruited chief medical informatics officers and similarly positioned individuals from academic medical centers across the country. We created and piloted a semistructured interview guide focused on (1) how academic medical centers govern artificial intelligence and prediction and (2) to what extent equity is considered in these processes. A total of 17 individuals representing 13 institutions across 4 census regions of the US were interviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A minority of participants reported considering inequity, racism, or bias in governance. Most participants conceptualized these issues as characteristics of a tool, using frameworks such as algorithmic bias or fairness. Fewer participants conceptualized equity beyond the technology itself and asked broader questions about its implications for patients. Disparities in health information technology resources across health systems were repeatedly identified as a threat to health equity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found a lack of consistent equity consideration among academic medical centers as they develop their governance processes for predictive technologies despite considerable national attention to the ways these technologies can cause or reproduce inequities. Health systems and policy makers will need to specifically prioritize equity literacy among health system leadership, design oversight policies, and promote critical engagement with these tools and their implications to prevent the further entrenchment of inequities in digital health care.</p>","PeriodicalId":50808,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Managed Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Managed Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37765/ajmc.2024.89555","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To understand whether and how equity is considered in artificial intelligence/machine learning governance processes at academic medical centers.

Study design: Qualitative analysis of interview data.

Methods: We created a database of academic medical centers from the full list of Association of American Medical Colleges hospital and health system members in 2022. Stratifying by census region and restricting to nonfederal and nonspecialty centers, we recruited chief medical informatics officers and similarly positioned individuals from academic medical centers across the country. We created and piloted a semistructured interview guide focused on (1) how academic medical centers govern artificial intelligence and prediction and (2) to what extent equity is considered in these processes. A total of 17 individuals representing 13 institutions across 4 census regions of the US were interviewed.

Results: A minority of participants reported considering inequity, racism, or bias in governance. Most participants conceptualized these issues as characteristics of a tool, using frameworks such as algorithmic bias or fairness. Fewer participants conceptualized equity beyond the technology itself and asked broader questions about its implications for patients. Disparities in health information technology resources across health systems were repeatedly identified as a threat to health equity.

Conclusions: We found a lack of consistent equity consideration among academic medical centers as they develop their governance processes for predictive technologies despite considerable national attention to the ways these technologies can cause or reproduce inequities. Health systems and policy makers will need to specifically prioritize equity literacy among health system leadership, design oversight policies, and promote critical engagement with these tools and their implications to prevent the further entrenchment of inequities in digital health care.

学术医疗中心的公平与人工智能管理。
研究目的:了解学术医疗中心在人工智能/机器学习管理过程中是否以及如何考虑公平问题:了解学术医疗中心在人工智能/机器学习管理过程中是否以及如何考虑公平问题:研究设计:对访谈数据进行定性分析:我们从 2022 年美国医学院协会医院和卫生系统成员的完整名单中创建了一个学术医疗中心数据库。按照人口普查地区进行分层,并限制为非联邦和非专业中心,我们从全国各地的学术医疗中心招募了首席医疗信息官和类似职位的人员。我们创建并试用了一份半结构式访谈指南,重点关注:(1)学术医疗中心如何管理人工智能和预测;(2)在这些过程中公平性得到了多大程度的考虑。代表美国 4 个人口普查地区 13 家机构的 17 人接受了访谈:结果:少数参与者表示在治理过程中考虑了不公平、种族主义或偏见问题。大多数参与者使用算法偏见或公平性等框架,将这些问题概念化为工具的特征。较少的参与者将公平的概念超越了技术本身,并就其对患者的影响提出了更广泛的问题。各医疗系统在医疗信息技术资源方面的差异一再被认为是对医疗公平的威胁:我们发现,学术医疗中心在制定预测性技术的管理流程时,缺乏对公平性的一致考虑,尽管这些技术可能导致或重现不公平现象的方式在全国范围内引起了广泛关注。医疗系统和政策制定者需要特别优先考虑医疗系统领导层的公平素养,设计监督政策,并促进对这些工具及其影响的批判性参与,以防止数字医疗中的不公平现象进一步加剧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Managed Care
American Journal of Managed Care 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Managed Care is an independent, peer-reviewed publication dedicated to disseminating clinical information to managed care physicians, clinical decision makers, and other healthcare professionals. Its aim is to stimulate scientific communication in the ever-evolving field of managed care. The American Journal of Managed Care addresses a broad range of issues relevant to clinical decision making in a cost-constrained environment and examines the impact of clinical, management, and policy interventions and programs on healthcare and economic outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信