Jul 2026· International Journal for Equity in Health· Vol 25· 0 citations· 27 references
Medicine
TL;DR
This viewpoint proposes a composite framework, the AI in Healthcare Equity Index (AIHEI), to support measurable assessment of equity in health AI systems, designed to assess equity across five domains: data representation, algorithmic fairness, transparency and explainability, governance and oversight, and community impact and benefit sharing.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly embedded in health systems globally and has the potential to improve efficiency, diagnostic accuracy, and decision support. However, its benefits remain unevenly distributed, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Models developed using datasets from specific populations may perform poorly in other settings, reinforcing structural inequities rather than correcting them. This viewpoint proposes a composite framework, the AI in Healthcare Equity Index (AIHEI), to support measurable assessment of equity in health AI systems. The AIHEI is designed to assess equity across five domains: data representation, algorithmic fairness, transparency and explainability, governance and oversight, and community impact and benefit sharing. By generating a standardised score, the index could enable comparisons across technologies, incentivise improvement, and support regulation, procurement, publication, and funding decisions. Pilots across diverse health domains and geographic settings are needed to assess feasibility, refine domain weighting, and evaluate reliability, reproducibility, and validity. Important challenges include contextual definitions of fairness, data sovereignty, post-deployment monitoring, and the risk of metric gaming. Quantifying equity in health AI is essential to ensure that AI does not create, widen, or exacerbate existing disparities by neglecting underserved populations. A common, objective measure of AI-related health equity can help move the field from ethical aspiration toward measurable accountability, monitoring, and enforcement.
An AI Productivity Index is proposed to complement existing safety, efficacy and economic assessments by evaluating operational impact, implementation burden, opportunity costs and post-deployment consequences.
Y. Al-Ajlouni, Basile Njei· Clinical medicine (London)· 0 citations
The optimistic view holds that AI can reduce gaps by improving the accuracy of diagnostics and therapeutics and by expanding access to services that would otherwise be out of reach demonstrates that these capabilities can profitably influence health status and survival in under-resourced settings.
I. Alnaimi, Ibrahim Abdul Jaleel Yamani, A. Alkhatib· European Journal of Prosthod...· 0 citations
Funders and implementers should prioritize durable infrastructure, strengthened health information systems, rigorous evidence generation, environmentally responsible deployment, and local stewardship to achieve scalable, equitable, and sustainable AI in global health.
Yuri Quintana, Titus Schleyer, Arriel Benis et al.· JAMIA Journal of the America...· 0 citations
Limits in prevailing approaches to health AI evaluation are examined and a framework prioritizing outcomes-based, systems-level assessment aligned with healthcare delivery goals is proposed, contrasting a deontological focus on methodological standards with a consequentialist framework emphasizing real-world impact.
P. Payne, T. Kannampallil, Margaret Lozovatsky· JAMIA Journal of the America...· 0 citations
This study introduces a comprehensive value framework tailored to artificial intelligence in healthcare, extending evaluation beyond narrow cost–outcome ratios and provides researchers with clear dimensions for developing indicators and evaluation tools for responsible AI use in health services.
Five priorities define a translational agenda for 2026 and beyond: AI in mental health will succeed not through model performance alone, but through disciplined integration into clinical workflows, measurement systems, and governance structures that ensure safety, equity, and real-world effectiveness.
Martin P. Paulus, J. Torous, R. Perlis et al.· NPP—Digital Psychiatry and N...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.