Artificial Intelligence Medical Education Scoping Review | JoVE Visualize

Area of Science:

Medical education research within Artificial Intelligence literacy
Health informatics and clinical workforce development

Background:

No prior work had resolved the full scope of training needs for medical staff regarding advanced computational tools. That uncertainty drove the need for a comprehensive assessment of current pedagogical efforts. Prior research has shown that clinicians often lack the technical background required for modern digital integration. This gap motivated an investigation into how medical training currently addresses these emerging knowledge requirements. Most practitioners remain unprepared for the rapid shift toward automated diagnostic and treatment support systems. Such deficiencies create substantial obstacles for the successful adoption of new technologies in clinical settings. The current literature remains fragmented regarding how best to prepare the workforce for these changes. This study synthesizes existing evidence to clarify the state of professional training in this domain.

Purpose Of The Study:

The primary aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of current and past training programs for health care professionals. The authors seek to identify the types of educational content currently offered to medical staff. They also intend to examine the various modes of delivery used in these training initiatives. Another goal involves identifying critical factors that influence the successful implementation of such programs. The study also explores the specific outcomes used to measure the effectiveness of these interventions. By mapping this landscape, the researchers hope to inform the development of future educational efforts. This work addresses the urgent need to prepare clinicians for the integration of advanced technologies. The study ultimately seeks to highlight the competencies required to optimize patient outcomes through better digital training.

Main Methods:

The review approach involved a systematic search strategy to identify relevant literature on professional training. Investigators conducted a two-stage screening process to filter thousands of initial citations. Two independent reviewers performed the evaluation to maintain consistency throughout the selection phase. A third party resolved any conflicts that arose during the screening of titles and abstracts. The team included articles that described either existing training interventions or proposed curricular content for clinicians. They focused specifically on programs designed for staff at any career stage. This methodology allowed for the categorization of topics into distinct pedagogical domains. The authors synthesized these findings to provide a clear overview of the current landscape.

Main Results:

Key findings from the literature reveal that only 41 studies out of 10,094 unique citations met the eligibility criteria. Among these, 10 studies described 13 unique programs, while 31 studies focused on recommended curricular content. The content identified ranges from basic tool usage to complex skills for explaining algorithmic results. The authors categorized these topics into three domains: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. This analysis highlights the current state of training across various medical disciplines. The data show that most existing efforts are fragmented rather than standardized. The findings emphasize that specific competencies are required to enhance care quality. The results demonstrate that current programs vary significantly in their approach to teaching technical skills.

Conclusions:

The authors propose that future pedagogical initiatives prioritize the creation of robust regulatory frameworks for digital health. They suggest that a multidisciplinary strategy is necessary to effectively redesign existing medical curricula. The researchers emphasize the value of adopting competency-based models to ensure consistent skill acquisition among staff. They also highlight the importance of focusing on the nuances of patient-clinician interaction during digital tool usage. The synthesis indicates that these efforts are vital for optimizing clinical performance and overall patient health. The findings underscore the need for structured approaches to teaching complex algorithmic interpretation to medical personnel. The authors suggest that aligning training with practical clinical needs will improve the quality of care provided. This review offers a foundation for institutions aiming to standardize how they prepare clinicians for the future.

The authors report that training programs cover three primary domains: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. These categories help structure how clinicians learn to interpret algorithms and explain results to patients, moving beyond simple technical operation to practical application in clinical environments.

The researchers utilized a two-stage screening process involving two independent reviewers to evaluate 10,094 unique citations. A third reviewer resolved any disagreements, ensuring that only studies focused on actual or potential training for health care professionals were included in the final analysis.

A full-text review was necessary to distinguish between studies describing actual training programs and those merely recommending potential curricular content. This step allowed the authors to categorize the 41 relevant studies into 13 unique programs and 31 sets of curricular recommendations.

The study analyzed 41 relevant articles, representing 0.41% of the initial 10,094 citations. These articles provided data on program content, delivery modes, and assessment outcomes, which the authors used to map the current landscape of medical digital literacy training.

The researchers measured the effectiveness of these programs by examining the specific outcomes reported in the literature. These metrics help determine how well clinicians acquire skills related to algorithmic interpretation and the practical application of digital tools in patient care.

The authors suggest that future efforts should focus on regulatory strategies and multidisciplinary curriculum redesign. They propose that these systemic changes are necessary to ensure that clinicians can effectively use digital tools to improve patient outcomes.