We're implementing AI now, so why not ask us what to do? – How AI providers perceive and navigate the spread of diagnostic AI in complex healthcare systems
Open accessAbstract
Despite high expectations of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical diagnostics, predictions of its extensive and rapid adoption have so far not been matched by reality. AI providers seeking to promote and perpetuate the use of this technology are faced with the complex reality of embedding AI-enabled diagnostics across variable implementation contexts. In this study, we draw upon a complexity science approach and qualitative methodology to understand how AI providers perceive and navigate the spread of AI in complex healthcare systems. Using semi-structured, one-to-one interviews, we collected qualitative data from 14 providers of AI-enabled diagnostics. We triangulated the data by complementing the interviews with multiple sources, including a focus group of physicians with experience using these technologies. The notion of embedding allowed us to connect local implementation efforts with systemic diffusion. Our study reveals that AI providers self-organise to increase their adaptability when navigating the variable conditions and unpredictability of complex healthcare contexts. In addition to the tensions perceived by AI providers within the sociocultural, technological, and institutional subsystems of healthcare, we illustrate the practices emerging among them to mitigate these tensions: stealth science, agility, and digital ambidexterity. Our study contributes to the growing body of literature on the spread of AI in healthcare by capturing the view of technology providers and adding a new theoretical perspective through the lens of complexity science.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The opacity of the output is not aligned with the "medical ethos."
“Similarly, Gillner [44] also noted that this opacity of the output is not aligned with the “medical ethos.””
From Barriers to and facilitators of artificial intelligence adoption in health care: scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [44]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 30
- Authors
- Gillner, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Bern (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Gillner, Sandra
- ORCID
- Gillner, Sandra
- Venue
- Social Science & Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-01
- Volume
- 340
- Pages
- 116442
- ISSN
- 0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4388898753
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 6
- FWCI
- 1.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
- Funders
- Innovative Medicines Initiative (101034427)
- European Commission
- European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- technology diffusion, complexity science, embeddings, self-organization, agility, institutional tensions
- MeSH terms
- Data Accuracy, Artificial Intelligence, Health Facilities, Humans, Physicians, Focus Groups
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review