Artificial Intelligence Integration in U.S. Healthcare Professional Degree Programs: A Rapid Scoping Review

Artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities and use in health care have expanded rapidly, creating an urgent need to adapt health professions curricula. This study analyzed peer-reviewed evidence (2019-2026) on AI integration in health professional degree education relevant to U.S. programs, characterized study designs and findings, identified research gaps, and provided future directions for scalable, ethically governed AI curricula.

A rapid scoping review approach was applied using PubMed and Google Scholar as primary sources, supplemented by citation chaining of high-yield syntheses and targeted retrieval of authoritative U.S. curricular landscape resources and selected institutional exemplars (not counted as peer-reviewed studies). Inclusion targeted English-language, peer-reviewed studies (2019-2026) addressing artificial intelligence/machine learning/generative artificial intelligence education in health professions education, including surveys, curriculum evaluations, qualitative studies, consensus/Delphi, and scoping/systematic reviews. Data were extracted into evidence-mapping Tables (study characteristics and methods summary) and descriptively synthesized by profession, content domains, and evaluation outcomes.

Thirty-six peer-reviewed papers meeting the inclusion criteria were synthesized. Study designs were skewed toward reviews (integrative/scoping/systematic) and surveys; fewer evaluated educational interventions with objective pre/post outcomes. Medical education, especially radiology, accounted for many implementations and studies, while dentistry, pharmacy, and physical therapy education had smaller but growing bodies of work. Evidence syntheses consistently call for competency-based curricular design, faculty development, assessment redesign for generative AI, and governance aligned with ethical and risk-management frameworks.

U.S. health professions programs are moving from ad hoc AI exposure to structured offerings emerging from national organizations and institutional exemplars. However, the literature base remains early, with limited multi-institutional evaluations, minimal longitudinal follow-up, and weak linkage to clinical performance or patient outcomes. Next-generation research should prioritize competency-linked curricula, transparent evaluation methods, and equity- and safety-centered governance.