Top

BMC Public Health

Published in:

01-12-2021 | Public Health | Research article

“AI’s gonna have an impact on everything in society, so it has to have an impact on public health”: a fundamental qualitative descriptive study of the implications of artificial intelligence for public health

Authors: Jason D. Morgenstern, Laura C. Rosella, Mark J. Daley, Vivek Goel, Holger J. Schünemann, Thomas Piggott

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Our objective was to determine the impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) on public health practice.

Methods

We used a fundamental qualitative descriptive study design, enrolling 15 experts in public health and AI from June 2018 until July 2019 who worked in North America and Asia. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews, iteratively coded the resulting transcripts, and analyzed the results thematically.

Results

We developed 137 codes, from which nine themes emerged. The themes included opportunities such as leveraging big data and improving interventions; barriers to adoption such as confusion regarding AI’s applicability, limited capacity, and poor data quality; and risks such as propagation of bias, exacerbation of inequity, hype, and poor regulation.

Conclusions

Experts are cautiously optimistic about AI’s impacts on public health practice, particularly for improving disease surveillance. However, they perceived substantial barriers, such as a lack of available expertise, and risks, including inadequate regulation. Therefore, investment and research into AI for public health practice would likely be beneficial. However, increased access to high-quality data, research and education regarding the limitations of AI, and development of rigorous regulation are necessary to realize these benefits.

Available only for authorised users

Russell SJ, Norvig P. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2003.

Kaplan A, Haenlein M. Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Bus Horiz. 2019;62(1):15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUSHOR.2018.08.004.CrossRef

Langley P. The changing science of machine learning. Mach Learn. 2011;82(3):275–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-011-5242-y.CrossRef

Samuel AL. Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM J Res Dev. 1959;3(3):210–29. https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.33.0210.CrossRef

Lacey D. 3D data management: controlling data volume, velocity and variety. META Gr Res note. 2001;6(70):1.

Hosny A, Parmar C, Quackenbush J, Schwartz LH, Aerts HJWL. Artificial intelligence in radiology. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018;18(8):500–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-018-0016-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Esteva A, Kuprel B, Novoa RA, et al. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature. 2017;542(7639):115–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21056.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wang D, Khosla A, Gargeya R, Irshad H, Beck AH. Deep learning for identifying metastatic breast cancer; 2016. http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05718. Accessed 7 Sep 2019.

Johnson SR. Population health management could see wins from AI, machine learning | Modern Healthcare Indepth. Modern Healthcare InDepth. https://www.modernhealthcare.com/indepth/how-ai-plays-role-in-population-health-management/. Published 2018. Accessed 20 June 2019.

10.

The Lancet Public Health TLP. Next generation public health: towards precision and fairness. Lancet Public Health. 2019;4(5):e209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30064-7.CrossRef

11.

Brownstein JS, Freifeld CC, Madoff LC. Digital disease detection — harnessing the web for public health surveillance. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(21):2153–7. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp0900702.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Walsh CG, Ribeiro JD, Franklin JC. Predicting risk of suicide attempts over time through machine learning. Clin Psychol Sci. 2017;5(3):457–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617691560.CrossRef

13.

Holmes E, Loo RL, Stamler J, et al. Human metabolic phenotype diversity and its association with diet and blood pressure. Nature. 2008;453(7193):396–400. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06882.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Wiens J, Shenoy ES. Machine learning for healthcare: on the verge of a major shift in healthcare epidemiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(1):149–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix731.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Flaxman AD, Vos T. Machine learning in population health: opportunities and threats. PLoS Med. 2018;15(11):e1002702. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002702.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Mooney SJ, Pejaver V. Big data in public health: terminology, machine learning, and privacy. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:95–112. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014208.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Olstad DL, McIntyre L. Reconceptualising precision public health. BMJ Open. 2019;9(9):e030279. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030279.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Bradshaw C, Atkinson S, Doody O. Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2017;4:2333393617742282. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393617742282.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015;42(5):533–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

PAHO/WHO. The essential public health functions as a strategy for improving overall health systems performance: trends and challenges since the public health in the Americas initiative, 2000-2007. Washington, DC; 2008. http://www1.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2010/EPHF_Strategy_to_Strengthen_Performance.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2019.

21.

Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. Los Angeles: SAGE PublicationsSage CA; 2018.

22.

Descript Version 2.4.0 (10328). 2019. www.descript.com.

23.

Dedoose Version 8.2.14, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. 2019. www.dedoose.com.

24.

WordArt. 2020. https://www.wordart.com.

25.

Horton R. Offline: in defence of precision public health. Lancet. 2018;392(10157):1504. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32741-7.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Shaban-Nejad A, Lavigne M, Okhmatovskaia A, Buckeridge DL. PopHR: a knowledge-based platform to support integration, analysis, and visualization of population health data. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017;1387(1):44–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13271.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Sadilek A, Caty S, DiPrete L, et al. Machine-learned epidemiology: real-time detection of foodborne illness at scale. NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1(1):36. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-018-0045-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Niiler E. An AI Epidemiologist Sent the First Warnings of the Wuhan Virus | WIRED. Wored. https://www.wired.com/story/ai-epidemiologist-wuhan-public-health-warnings/. Published January 25, 2020. Accessed 15 Mar 2020.

29.

Bogoch II, Brady OJ, Kraemer MUG, et al. Anticipating the international spread of Zika virus from Brazil. Lancet. 2016;387(10016):335–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00080-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

McNabb SJN, Koo D, Seligman J. Centers for disease control and prevention. Informatics and public health at CDC. MMWR Suppl. 2006;55(2):25–8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17183240. Accessed September 11, 2019.PubMed

31.

Hu L, Bell D, Antani S, et al. An observational study of deep learning and automated evaluation of cervical images for cancer screening. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy225.

32.

Husten L. Apple Watch and atrial fibrillation detection: more harm than good? - STAT. STAT News. https://www.statnews.com/2019/03/15/apple-watch-atrial-fibrillation/. Published March 15, 2019. Accessed 15 Mar 2020.

33.

Arney D, Senges M, Gerke S, et al. A user-focused Transdisciplinary research agenda for AI-enabled health tech governance; 2019. https://cyber.harvard.edu/publication/2019/user-focused-transdisciplinary-research-agenda-ai-en-. Accessed 10 Mar 2020.CrossRef

34.

Arno A, Thomas S. The efficacy of nudge theory strategies in influencing adult dietary behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):676. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3272-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Capurro D, Cole K, Echavarría MI, Joe J, Neogi T, Turner AM. The use of social networking sites for public health practice and research: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(3). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2679.

36.

Welch V, Petkovic J, Pardo Pardo J, Rader T, Tugwell P. Interactive social media interventions to promote health equity: An overview of reviews. Heal Promot Chronic Dis Prev Canada. 2016;36(4):63–75. https://doi.org/10.24095/hpcdp.36.4.01.CrossRef

37.

Laranjo L, Arguel A, Neves AL, et al. The influence of social networking sites on health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(1):243–56. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002841.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Stein N, Brooks K. A fully automated conversational artificial intelligence for weight loss: longitudinal observational study among overweight and obese adults. JMIR Diabetes. 2017;2(2):e28. https://doi.org/10.2196/diabetes.8590.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Fitzpatrick KK, Darcy A, Vierhile M. Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Ment Heal. 2017;4(2):e19. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.7785.CrossRef

40.

Wilder B, Ching Ou H, de la Haye K, Tambe M. Op-Timizing network structure for preventative health. 2018;9 www.ifaamas.org. Accessed 3 Mar 2020.

41.

Phillips CV, Goodman KJ. The missed lessons of sir Austin Bradford Hill. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2004;1(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5573-1-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

S. J M. Big data in public health: terminology, machine learning, and privacy. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:95–112. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014208.CrossRef

43.

Schuler MS, Rose S. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation for causal inference in observational studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;185(1):65–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kww165.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Molnar C. Interpretable machine learning: a guide for making black box models explainable: Leanpub; 2019. https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/.

45.

Fisher S, Hsu A, Mojaverian N, et al. Dementia population risk tool (DemPoRT): study protocol for a predictive algorithm assessing dementia risk in the community. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018018.

46.

Rosella LC, Manuel DG, Burchill C, Stukel TA. A population-based risk algorithm for the development of diabetes: development and validation of the diabetes population risk tool (DPoRT). https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2009.102244.

47.

Manuel DG, Tuna M, Bennett C, et al. Development and validation of a cardiovascular disease risk-prediction model using population health surveys: the cardiovascular disease population risk tool (CVDPoRT). CMAJ. 2018;190(29):E871–82. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.170914.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Christodoulou E, Ma J, Collins GS, Steyerberg EW, Verbakel JY, Van Calster B. A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;110:12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.004.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Nusinovici S, Tham YC, Chak Yan MY, et al. Logistic regression was as good as machine learning for predicting major chronic diseases. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.002.

50.

Morgenstern JD, Buajitti E, O’Neill M, et al. Predicting population health with machine learning: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e037860. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037860.

51.

UM Today Staff. Building equitable AI for public health. UM Today. https://news.umanitoba.ca/building-equitable-ai-for-public-health/. Published January 17, 2020.

52.

Panch T, Mattie H, Celi LA. The “inconvenient truth” about AI in healthcare. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2(1):77. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0155-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Guttmann A. The SPOR Canadian data platform: opportunity for multi-provincial research. CMAJ. 2019;191(40):E1091–2. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.191040.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Savel TG, Foldy S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The role of public health informatics in enhancing public health surveillance. MMWR Suppl. 2012;61(3):20–4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22832993. Accessed 11 Sep 2019.PubMed

55.

Cunningham-burley S. Public acceptability of data sharing; 2013. October 2014.

56.

Skovgaard LL, Wadmann S, Hoeyer K. A review of attitudes towards the reuse of health data among people in the European Union: the primacy of purpose and the common good. Health Policy (New York). 2019;123(6):564–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.03.012.CrossRef

57.

Aitken M, De St Jorre J, Pagliari C, Jepson R, Cunningham-Burley S. Public responses to the sharing and linkage of health data for research purposes: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0153-x.CrossRef

58.

Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, Mullainathan S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science (80- ). 2019;366(6464):447–53. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax2342.CrossRef

59.

Gijsberts CM, Groenewegen KA, Hoefer IE, et al. Race/ethnic differences in the associations of the Framingham risk factors with carotid IMT and cardiovascular events. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0132321. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132321.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Lazer D, Kennedy R, King G, Vespignani A. The parable of google flu: traps in big data analysis. Science (80- ). 2014;343(6176):1203–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248506.CrossRef

61.

Cahan EM, Hernandez-Boussard T, Thadaney-Israni S, Rubin DL. Putting the data before the algorithm in big data addressing personalized healthcare. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2(1):78. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0157-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

62.

Federal Drug Administration. Proposed regulatory framework for modifications to artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)-based software as a medical device (SaMD)-discussion paper and request for feedback; 2020. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm514737.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2020.

63.

Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, et al. GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: introduction. BMJ. 2016;353:i2016. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2016.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Moberg J, Oxman AD, Rosenbaum S, et al. The GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions. Heal Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0320-2.CrossRef

65.

Christensen CM, Grossman JH, Hwang J. The Innovator’s prescription: a disruptive solution for health care: McGraw-Hill; 2009. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=35729. Accessed 11 Sep 2019.

66.

Hwang J, Christensen CM. Disruptive innovation in health care delivery: a framework for business-model innovation. Health Aff. 2008;27(5):1329–35. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.5.1329.CrossRef

67.

Eggers WD, Baker L, Vaughn A. Public sector, disrupted: how disruptive innovation can help government achieve more for less. Deloitte Insights. 2019; https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/innovation/public-sector-disrupted.html. Accessed 11 Sep 2019.

68.

Choucair B, Bhatt J, Mansour R. A bright future: innovation transforming public health in Chicago. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015;21(Suppl 1):S49–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000140.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Chin C. AI Is the Future—But Where Are the Women? | WIRED. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-researchers-gender-imbalance/. Published August 17, 2018. Accessed September 3, 2019.

Title: “AI’s gonna have an impact on everything in society, so it has to have an impact on public health”: a fundamental qualitative descriptive study of the implications of artificial intelligence for public health
Authors: Jason D. Morgenstern
Laura C. Rosella
Mark J. Daley
Vivek Goel
Holger J. Schünemann
Thomas Piggott
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Public Health
Artificial Intelligence
Published in: BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10030-x

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

“AI’s gonna have an impact on everything in society, so it has to have an impact on public health”: a fundamental qualitative descriptive study of the implications of artificial intelligence for public health

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Breastfeeding knowledge of mothers in protracted crises: the Gaza Strip example

Building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in public health: a cluster randomized trial

Household factors and under-five mortality in Bankass, Mali: results from a cross-sectional survey

Barriers to and facilitators of diabetes self-management practices in Rupandehi, Nepal- multiple stakeholders’ perspective

Comparison of influenza surveillance systems in Australia, China, Malaysia and expert recommendations for influenza control

Correction to: Is adolescent multiple risk behaviour associated with reduced socioeconomic status in young adulthood and do those with low socioeconomic backgrounds experience greater negative impact? Findings from two UK birth cohort studies