Cited by 206Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareElectronic Health Records Systems

Artificial Intelligence in Primary Health Care: Perceptions, Issues, and Challenges: Primary Health Care Informatics Working Group Contribution to the Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2019

Open access
Liyanage, Harshana, Liaw, Siaw-Teng, Jonnagaddala, Jitendra, Schreiber, Richard, Kuziemsky, Craig, Terry, Amanda L, de Lusignan, Simon·2019·Yearbook of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is heralded as an approach that might augment or substitute for the limited processing power of the human brain of primary health care (PHC) professionals. However, there are concerns that AI-mediated decisions may be hard to validate and challenge, or may result in rogue decisions. Objective: To form consensus about perceptions, issues, and challenges of AI in primary care. Method: A three-round Delphi study was conducted. Round 1 explored experts’ viewpoints on AI in PHC (n=20). Round 2 rated the appropriateness of statements arising from round one (n=12). The third round was an online panel discussion of findings (n=8) with the members of both the International Medical Informatics Association and the European Federation of Medical Informatics Primary Health Care Informatics Working Groups. Results: PHC and informatics experts reported AI has potential to improve managerial and clinical decisions and processes, and this would be facilitated by common data standards. The respondents did not agree that AI applications should learn and adapt to clinician preferences or behaviour and they did not agree on the extent of AI potential for harm to patients. It was more difficult to assess the impact of AI-based applications on continuity and coordination of care. Conclusion: While the use of AI in medicine should enhance healthcare delivery, we need to ensure meticulous design and evaluation of AI applications. The primary care informatics community needs to be proactive and to guide the ethical and rigorous development of AI applications so that they will be safe and effective.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0039-1677901

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Revealing the process of how the algorithm was developed, who was involved in the development process, whether clinicians were consulted, and how the data were processed would enable acceptability.

    “Furthermore, revealing the process of how the algorithm was developed, who was involved in the development process, whether clinicians were consulted, and how the data were processed would enable acceptability [42,43].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of artificial intelligence adoption in health care: scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Results section, “Ethical and Lawful Processing of Patient Data by AI Applications” (page unavailable), reports agreement on the need for transparency about data processing. It does not say that disclosing how an algorithm was developed, who developed it, or whether clinicians were consulted would increase acceptability. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI has significant potential to address PHC challenges by improving clinical decisions, enhancing diagnosis accuracy, and supporting disease surveillance.

    “AI has significant potential to address PHC challenges by improving clinical decisions, enhancing diagnosis accuracy, and supporting disease surveillance [27–30].”

    From Opportunities, challenges, and requirements for Artificial Intelligence (AI) implementation in Primary Health Care (PHC): a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Conclusions and Results (‘Future of AI in Primary Care’; page not provided) support AI’s potential to improve clinical decisions, while Table 1 gives examples of diagnostic assistance and earlier diagnosis. Our copy does not establish improved diagnostic accuracy or address disease surveillance, so those parts of the attributed claim are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI can improve access to care, facilitate early disease detection, automate routine clinical workflows, and support personalized treatment plans.

    “For instance, AI can improve access to care, facilitate early disease detection, automate routine clinical workflows, and support personalized treatment plans [23, 28, 31–34].”

    From Opportunities, challenges, and requirements for Artificial Intelligence (AI) implementation in Primary Health Care (PHC): a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

    Table 1 (Methods > Consensus Exercise; page not supplied) lists improving access through triage and early diagnosis as potential AI uses in primary care. The Results > Future of AI in Primary Care discusses support for diagnostic and therapeutic decisions and background data analysis, but does not establish automation of routine clinical workflows or personalized treatment plans. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI contributes to timely access to evidence-based information.

    “AI contributes to timely access to evidence-based information [15, 28, 62, 69, 73, 79, 81, 89, 92, 93, 98, 100, 101, 108, 110, 111, 115, 118, 123, 138, 140, 162]”

    From Opportunities, challenges, and requirements for Artificial Intelligence (AI) implementation in Primary Health Care (PHC): a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Results section, “Future of AI in Primary Care” (page unavailable), says AI can analyse data in the background to give providers a more integrated patient record during a consultation. That supports access to patient information at the point of care, but the paper does not say AI provides timely access to evidence-based information. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI presents a promising opportunity to address health inequalities, particularly by improving access to healthcare services, enhancing early detection of diseases in underserved populations, and reducing disparities in clinical decision-making.

    “AI presents a promising opportunity to address health inequalities [16, 28, 93, 107, 109, 113, 118, 127, 145], particularly by improving access to healthcare services, enhancing early detection of diseases in underserved populations, and reducing disparities in clinical decision-making.”

    From Opportunities, challenges, and requirements for Artificial Intelligence (AI) implementation in Primary Health Care (PHC): a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Results (Future of AI in Primary Care; page unavailable) say AI may reduce health inequalities by identifying vulnerable patients. Table 1 (Methods, Consensus Exercise; page unavailable) lists improving accessibility and early diagnosis as potential primary-care uses. Neither passage specifically connects early diagnosis to underserved populations or says AI reduces disparities in clinical decision-making. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liyanage, H., Liaw, S.-T., Jonnagaddala, J., Schreiber, R., Kuziemsky, C., Terry, A. L., & de Lusignan, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Surrey (GB)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Geisinger Holy Spirit, Camp Hill, PA, USA
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Western University (CA)
  • Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK
Corresponding author
Liyanage, Harshana
Venue
Yearbook of Medical Informatics
Published
2019-04-25
Volume
28
Issue
01
Pages
041-046
ISSN
  • 0943-4747 (ISSN-L)
  • 2364-0502
OpenAlex
W2940867124
Cited by
200
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Yearbook of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
artificial intelligence, primary care, clinical decision support, AI ethics, patient safety, continuity of care, care coordination, clinician preferences, expert consensus, AI harms
MeSH terms
Learning Health System, Artificial Intelligence, Delphi Technique, Primary Health Care

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