12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ensuring patient and public involvement in the transition to AI‐assisted mental health care: A systematic scoping review and agenda for design justice

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Machine‐learning algorithms and big data analytics, popularly known as ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI), are being developed and taken up globally. Patient and public involvement (PPI) in the transition to AI‐assisted health care is essential for design justice based on diverse patient needs.

          Objective

          To inform the future development of PPI in AI‐assisted health care by exploring public engagement in the conceptualization, design, development, testing, implementation, use and evaluation of AI technologies for mental health.

          Methods

          Systematic scoping review drawing on design justice principles, and (i) structured searches of Web of Science (all databases) and Ovid (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Global Health and Embase); (ii) handsearching (reference and citation tracking); (iii) grey literature; and (iv) inductive thematic analysis, tested at a workshop with health researchers.

          Results

          The review identified 144 articles that met inclusion criteria. Three main themes reflect the challenges and opportunities associated with PPI in AI‐assisted mental health care: (a) applications of AI technologies in mental health care; (b) ethics of public engagement in AI‐assisted care; and (c) public engagement in the planning, development, implementation, evaluation and diffusion of AI technologies.

          Conclusion

          The new data‐rich health landscape creates multiple ethical issues and opportunities for the development of PPI in relation to AI technologies. Further research is needed to understand effective modes of public engagement in the context of AI technologies, to examine pressing ethical and safety issues and to develop new methods of PPI at every stage, from concept design to the final review of technology in practice. Principles of design justice can guide this agenda.

          Related collections

          Most cited references201

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

              Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ESRC Postdoctoral Fellowt.m.zidaru-barbulescu@lse.ac.uk
                Role: Research Analyst/Inclusion Advocate (freelance)
                Role: Head of Research
                Journal
                Health Expect
                Health Expect
                10.1111/(ISSN)1369-7625
                HEX
                Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1369-6513
                1369-7625
                12 June 2021
                August 2021
                : 24
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1111/hex.v24.4 )
                : 1072-1124
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Anthropology London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) London UK
                [ 2 ] Research Support NI Belfast UK
                [ 3 ] Surrey Heartlands Health and Care Partnership Guildford and Waverley CCG Guildford UK
                [ 4 ] Insight and Feedback Team Nursing Directorate NHS England and NHS Improvement London UK
                [ 5 ] Surrey County Council Kingston upon Thames UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Teodor Zidaru, Department of Anthropology, OLD1.18, Old Building, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK.

                Email: t.m.zidaru-barbulescu@ 123456lse.ac.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4258-561X
                Article
                HEX13299
                10.1111/hex.13299
                8369091
                34118185
                76cf8fdf-5d40-4082-a747-f55b2adbe848
                © 2021 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 07 April 2021
                : 28 September 2020
                : 26 May 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 3, Pages: 53, Words: 30438
                Funding
                Funded by: NHS Improvement
                Funded by: NHS England
                Categories
                Review Article
                Review Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                August 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.5 mode:remove_FC converted:17.08.2021

                Health & Social care
                artificial intelligence,big data,design justice,digital health technology,machine learning,mental health,patient and public involvement,public engagement,scoping review

                Comments

                Comment on this article