Cited by 49Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Barriers to Use Artificial Intelligence Methodologies in Health Technology Assessment in Central and East European Countries

Open access
Tachkov, Konstantin, Zemplenyi, Antal, Kamusheva, Maria, Dimitrova, Maria, Siirtola, Pekka, Pontén, Johan, Nemeth, Bertalan, Kalo, Zoltan +1 more·2022·Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to identify the barriers that are specifically relevant to the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based evidence in Central and Eastern European (CEE) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systems. The study relied on two main parallel sources to identify barriers to use AI methodologies in HTA in CEE, including a scoping literature review and iterative focus group meetings with HTx team members. Most of the other selected articles discussed AI from a clinical perspective (n = 25), and the rest are from regulatory perspective (n = 13), and transfer of knowledge point of view (n = 3). Clinical areas studied are quite diverse—from pediatric, diabetes, diagnostic radiology, gynecology, oncology, surgery, psychiatry, cardiology, infection diseases, and oncology. Out of all 38 articles, 25 (66%) describe the AI method and the rest are more focused on the utilization barriers of different health care services and programs. The potential barriers could be classified as data related, methodological, technological, regulatory and policy related, and human factor related. Some of the barriers are quite similar, especially concerning the technologies. Studies focusing on the AI usage for HTA decision making are scarce. AI and augmented decision making tools are a novel science, and we are in the process of adapting it to existing needs. HTA as a process requires multiple steps, multiple evaluations which rely on heterogenous data. Therefore, the observed range of barriers come as a no surprise, and experts in the field need to give their opinion on the most important barriers in order to develop recommendations to overcome them and to disseminate the practical application of these tools.

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 · 10.3389/fpubh.2022.921226

Cites

55 of 55 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?

  • A recent literature review identified technological support and a lack of experts in AI in medicine as the main barriers to the integration of AI into medical education, as reported by students from Central and Eastern European countries.

    “Similarly, a recent literature review identified technological support and a lack of experts in AI in medicine as the main barriers to the integration of AI into medical education, as reported by students from Central and Eastern European countries [38].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [53]Journal of Information Technology & Politics Special Issue: Digital Media, Democracy and Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe. Available online at: https://think.taylorandfrancis.com/special_issues/digital-media-democracy-civil-society-central-eastern-europe/ (accessed January 16, 2022).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tachkov, K., Zemplenyi, A., Kamusheva, M., Dimitrova, M., Siirtola, P., Pontén, J., Nemeth, B., Kalo, Z., & Petrova, G.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of Sofia (BG)
  • Syreon Research Institute (Hungary) (HU)
  • University of Oulu (FI)
Corresponding author
Petrova, Guenka
Venue
Frontiers in Public Health
Published
2022-07-14
Volume
10
Pages
921226-921226
ISSN
2296-2565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4285386115
Cited by
49
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
European Commission (825162)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
artificial intelligence, health technology assessment, AI adoption barriers, Central and Eastern Europe, health policy, regulatory challenges, data quality, AI decision support
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Child, Humans, Technology Assessment, Biomedical

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