Frameworks encompassing intersectional perspective of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Scoping review

IF 2.2 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Public Health in Practice Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-18 DOI:10.1016/j.puhip.2025.100713
Sua Amaya-Santos , Carlos Vargas , Clara Bermúdez-Tamayo
{"title":"Frameworks encompassing intersectional perspective of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Scoping review","authors":"Sua Amaya-Santos ,&nbsp;Carlos Vargas ,&nbsp;Clara Bermúdez-Tamayo","doi":"10.1016/j.puhip.2025.100713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study systematically evaluates how existing AI frameworks in healthcare address intersectional bias across the AI lifecycle and explores the mitigation strategies proposed.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>Scoping review.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A scoping review was conducted per PRISMA-ScR guidelines, analyzing studies from 2014 to 2024. Searches included MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), SCOPUS, ESCI, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar. Data were extracted on bias-related challenges and mitigation strategies across AI lifecycle phases (development, validation, implementation, monitoring). Studies were ranked by inclusivity (high, medium, or low).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 374 records, 43 studies met inclusion criteria, primarily from high-income countries. Gender/sex (51.2 %) and race/ethnicity (44.2 %) were the most addressed dimensions, while disability (14 %) and citizenship (9.3 %) were least addressed. Inclusivity was categorized as high (21 studies, 48.8 %), medium (23.2 %), or low (27.9 %). Overall, 14 biases and 21 mitigation strategies were identified.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Significant gaps remain in addressing intersectional biases in AI frameworks, particularly for underrepresented groups such as individuals with disabilities and non-citizens. Despite many frameworks demonstrating efforts toward inclusivity, attention to intersectionality remains uneven and largely inconsistent. Mapping biases to lifecycle phases highlights actionable strategies to improve equity and inclusivity in AI-driven healthcare. These findings provide valuable guidance for researchers, policymakers, and developers to create equitable and responsible AI systems.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34141,"journal":{"name":"Public Health in Practice","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100713"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535225001326","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

This study systematically evaluates how existing AI frameworks in healthcare address intersectional bias across the AI lifecycle and explores the mitigation strategies proposed.

Study design

Scoping review.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted per PRISMA-ScR guidelines, analyzing studies from 2014 to 2024. Searches included MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), SCOPUS, ESCI, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar. Data were extracted on bias-related challenges and mitigation strategies across AI lifecycle phases (development, validation, implementation, monitoring). Studies were ranked by inclusivity (high, medium, or low).

Results

Of 374 records, 43 studies met inclusion criteria, primarily from high-income countries. Gender/sex (51.2 %) and race/ethnicity (44.2 %) were the most addressed dimensions, while disability (14 %) and citizenship (9.3 %) were least addressed. Inclusivity was categorized as high (21 studies, 48.8 %), medium (23.2 %), or low (27.9 %). Overall, 14 biases and 21 mitigation strategies were identified.

Conclusions

Significant gaps remain in addressing intersectional biases in AI frameworks, particularly for underrepresented groups such as individuals with disabilities and non-citizens. Despite many frameworks demonstrating efforts toward inclusivity, attention to intersectionality remains uneven and largely inconsistent. Mapping biases to lifecycle phases highlights actionable strategies to improve equity and inclusivity in AI-driven healthcare. These findings provide valuable guidance for researchers, policymakers, and developers to create equitable and responsible AI systems.
包括医疗保健中人工智能交叉视角的框架。范围审查
本研究系统地评估了医疗保健领域现有的人工智能框架如何解决整个人工智能生命周期中的交叉偏差,并探讨了提出的缓解策略。研究设计范围审查。方法根据PRISMA-ScR指南进行范围综述,分析2014 - 2024年的研究。检索包括MEDLINE (Ovid)、PubMed、EMBASE (Ovid)、SCOPUS、ESCI、IEEE explore和谷歌Scholar。提取了人工智能生命周期各阶段(开发、验证、实施、监测)中与偏见相关的挑战和缓解战略的数据。研究按包容性(高、中、低)进行排名。结果在374项记录中,43项研究符合纳入标准,主要来自高收入国家。性别/性别(51.2%)和种族/民族(44.2%)是被提及最多的维度,而残疾(14%)和公民身份(9.3%)被提及最少。包容性分为高(21项研究,48.8%)、中(23.2%)和低(27.9%)。总体而言,确定了14种偏见和21种缓解策略。在解决人工智能框架中的交叉偏见方面仍然存在重大差距,特别是对于残疾人和非公民等代表性不足的群体。尽管许多框架展示了对包容性的努力,但对交叉性的关注仍然不平衡,而且在很大程度上不一致。将偏见映射到生命周期阶段突出了可操作的战略,以改善人工智能驱动的医疗保健中的公平性和包容性。这些发现为研究人员、政策制定者和开发人员创造公平和负责任的人工智能系统提供了宝贵的指导。
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
Public Health in Practice
Public Health in Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
117
审稿时长
71 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