ABSTRACT
In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), AI has been promoted as a potential means of strengthening healthcare systems by a growing number of publications. We aimed to evaluate the scope and nature of AI technologies in the specific context of LMICs. In this systematic scoping review, we used a broad variety of AI and healthcare search terms. Our literature search included records published between 1st January 2009 and 30th September 2021 from the Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Global Health and APA PsycInfo databases, and grey literature from a Google Scholar search. We included studies that reported a quantitative and/or qualitative evaluation of a real-world application of AI in an LMIC health context. A total of 10 references evaluating the application of AI in an LMIC were included. Applications varied widely, including: clinical decision support systems, treatment planning and triage assistants and health chatbots. Only half of the papers reported which algorithms and datasets were used in order to train the AI. A number of challenges of using AI tools were reported, including issues with reliability, mixed impacts on workflows, poor user friendliness and lack of adeptness with local contexts. Many barriers exists that prevent the successful development and adoption of well-performing, context-specific AI tools, such as limited data availability, trust and evidence of cost-effectiveness in LMICs. Additional evaluations of the use of AI in healthcare in LMICs are needed in order to identify their effectiveness and reliability in real-world settings and to generate understanding for best practices for future implementations.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Wearable devices hold great promise, particularly for data generation for cutting-edge health research, and their demand has risen substantially in recent years. However, there is a shortage of aggregated insights into how wearables have been used in health research. OBJECTIVE: In this review, we aim to broadly overview and categorize the current research conducted with affordable wearable devices for health research. METHODS: We performed a scoping review to understand the use of affordable, consumer-grade wearables for health research from a population health perspective using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) framework. A total of 7499 articles were found in 4 medical databases (PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, and CINAHL). Studies were eligible if they used noninvasive wearables: worn on the wrist, arm, hip, and chest; measured vital signs; and analyzed the collected data quantitatively. We excluded studies that did not use wearables for outcome assessment and prototype studies, devices that cost >500 (US $570), or obtrusive smart clothing. RESULTS: We included 179 studies using 189 wearable devices covering 10,835,733 participants. Most studies were observational (128/179, 71.5%), conducted in 2020 (56/179, 31.3%) and in North America (94/179, 52.5%), and 93% (10,104,217/10,835,733) of the participants were part of global health studies. The most popular wearables were fitness trackers (86/189, 45.5%) and accelerometer wearables, which primarily measure movement (49/189, 25.9%). Typical measurements included steps (95/179, 53.1%), heart rate (HR; 55/179, 30.7%), and sleep duration (51/179, 28.5%). Other devices measured blood pressure (3/179, 1.7%), skin temperature (3/179, 1.7%), oximetry (3/179, 1.7%), or respiratory rate (2/179, 1.1%). The wearables were mostly worn on the wrist (138/189, 73%) and cost <200 (US $228; 120/189, 63.5%). The aims and approaches of all 179 studies revealed six prominent uses for wearables, comprising correlations-wearable and other physiological data (40/179, 22.3%), method evaluations (with subgroups; 40/179, 22.3%), population-based research (31/179, 17.3%), experimental outcome assessment (30/179, 16.8%), prognostic forecasting (28/179, 15.6%), and explorative analysis of big data sets (10/179, 5.6%). The most frequent strengths of affordable wearables were validation, accuracy, and clinical certification (104/179, 58.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Wearables showed an increasingly diverse field of application such as COVID-19 prediction, fertility tracking, heat-related illness, drug effects, and psychological interventions; they also included underrepresented populations, such as individuals with rare diseases. There is a lack of research on wearable devices in low-resource contexts. Fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, we see a shift toward more large-sized, web-based studies where wearables increased insights into the developing pandemic, including forecasting models and the effects of the pandemic. Some studies have indicated that big data extracted from wearables may potentially transform the understanding of population health dynamics and the ability to forecast health trends.