Artificial Intelligence Techniques and Health Literacy: A Systematic Review

IF 5
Abigail Naa Amankwaa Abeo MS , Sophie Armstrong BSc , Michael Scriney PhD , Hannah Goss PhD
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence Techniques and Health Literacy: A Systematic Review","authors":"Abigail Naa Amankwaa Abeo MS ,&nbsp;Sophie Armstrong BSc ,&nbsp;Michael Scriney PhD ,&nbsp;Hannah Goss PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.mcpdig.2025.100269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To systematically review the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) in health literacy, highlighting limitations and future developments.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines, was conducted searching 6 databases for studies published from January 1, 2014, through April 10, 2024. Data extracted included population characteristics, health literacy definitions and measurement, study objectives, AI techniques, and metrics. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>From 1296 studies, 18 (1.4%) met inclusion criteria. These studies primarily evaluated text-based materials, including online articles, and electronic health records, with most materials in English, but also incorporated other languages. Artificial intelligence played various roles, including evaluating complexity, text simplification/readability enhancement, translation, and question-answering. Only 5 studies involved participant engagement. Seven studies provided a health literacy definition, consistently describing it as an individual’s ability to obtain, understand, and use health information for informed decisions, often linking it to external factors. However, only 1 study incorporated an individual level health literacy measurement tool, whereas organizational level health literacy measurement remained largely overlooked. The AI techniques used included traditional machine learning, deep learning, and transformer-based models. Evaluation metrics were categorized into human evaluation, readability, and machine learning metrics.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The review highlights AI’s dynamic application in relation to health literacy; however, measurement of health literacy, at both an individual and organizational level, to evidence AI's effectiveness remains limited. In addition, future work should not only measure health literacy outcomes more rigorously but also pursue research on enhancing AI model performance, robust evaluation, and their practical implementation in real-world settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74127,"journal":{"name":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","volume":"3 4","pages":"Article 100269"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949761225000768","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To systematically review the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) in health literacy, highlighting limitations and future developments.

Methods

A systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines, was conducted searching 6 databases for studies published from January 1, 2014, through April 10, 2024. Data extracted included population characteristics, health literacy definitions and measurement, study objectives, AI techniques, and metrics. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted checklist.

Results

From 1296 studies, 18 (1.4%) met inclusion criteria. These studies primarily evaluated text-based materials, including online articles, and electronic health records, with most materials in English, but also incorporated other languages. Artificial intelligence played various roles, including evaluating complexity, text simplification/readability enhancement, translation, and question-answering. Only 5 studies involved participant engagement. Seven studies provided a health literacy definition, consistently describing it as an individual’s ability to obtain, understand, and use health information for informed decisions, often linking it to external factors. However, only 1 study incorporated an individual level health literacy measurement tool, whereas organizational level health literacy measurement remained largely overlooked. The AI techniques used included traditional machine learning, deep learning, and transformer-based models. Evaluation metrics were categorized into human evaluation, readability, and machine learning metrics.

Conclusion

The review highlights AI’s dynamic application in relation to health literacy; however, measurement of health literacy, at both an individual and organizational level, to evidence AI's effectiveness remains limited. In addition, future work should not only measure health literacy outcomes more rigorously but also pursue research on enhancing AI model performance, robust evaluation, and their practical implementation in real-world settings.
人工智能技术与健康素养:系统综述
目的系统回顾人工智能(AI)在健康素养中的应用,强调其局限性和未来发展。方法按照PRISMA指南,对2014年1月1日至2024年4月10日期间发表的6个数据库进行系统评价。提取的数据包括人口特征、健康素养定义和测量、研究目标、人工智能技术和指标。使用调整后的检查表评估偏倚风险。结果1296项研究中,18项(1.4%)符合纳入标准。这些研究主要评估基于文本的材料,包括在线文章和电子健康记录,大多数材料为英语,但也纳入了其他语言。人工智能发挥了各种作用,包括评估复杂性、文本简化/可读性增强、翻译和问答。只有5项研究涉及参与者的参与度。七项研究提供了健康素养的定义,一致地将其描述为个人获取、理解和使用健康信息以作出明智决定的能力,通常将其与外部因素联系起来。然而,只有1项研究纳入了个人层面的健康素养测量工具,而组织层面的健康素养测量在很大程度上仍然被忽视。使用的人工智能技术包括传统的机器学习、深度学习和基于变压器的模型。评估指标分为人类评估、可读性和机器学习指标。结论综述强调人工智能在健康素养方面的动态应用;然而,在个人和组织层面衡量卫生素养,以证明人工智能的有效性仍然有限。此外,未来的工作不仅应更严格地衡量健康素养的结果,还应致力于提高人工智能模型的性能、稳健评估及其在现实世界中的实际实施。
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
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health Medicine and Dentistry (General), Health Informatics, Public Health and Health Policy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
47 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书