Four equity considerations for the use of artificial intelligence in public health

Smith, Maxwell J.; Axler, Renata; Bean, Sally; Rudzicz, Frank; Shaw, James

doi:10.2471/blt.19.237503

Cited by 28 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Algorithmic bias also reinforces existing inequalities, because bias often reflects existing social norms that discriminate against minorities and women. AI compounds this discrimination through unequal access, which further excludes the marginalized from the benefits of AI technology (Achiume, 2020; Smith et al., 2020). Investments in new technologies are financed commercially, even when they are used for public purposes such as healthcare, education, social protection, and security, and can be misaligned with public priorities, or the needs of low and middle income countries (LMICs).…”

Section: Human Rights Approach To Aimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While there is great potential for AI to reduce inequality within and among countries, there is an ever‐present risk that it will instead aggravate already high rates of inequality. The dynamics of AI and inequalities lies not only in the technology but in the unequal social and economic structures in which AI‐DDD takes place (Ferryman and Pitcan, 2018; Smith et al., 2020).…”

Section: Human Rights Approach To Aimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Emerging Consensus on ‘Ethical AI’: Human Rights Critique of Stakeholder Guidelines

Fukuda‐Parr

Gibbons

2021

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Voluntary guidelines on ‘ethical practices’ have been the response by stakeholders to address the growing concern over harmful social consequences of artificial intelligence and digital technologies. Issued by dozens of actors from industry, government and professional associations, the guidelines are creating a consensus on core standards and principles for ethical design, development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI). Using human rights principles (equality, participation and accountability) and attention to the right to privacy, this paper reviews 15 guidelines preselected to be strongest on human rights, and on global health. We find about half of these ground their guidelines in international human rights law and incorporate the key principles; even these could go further, especially in suggesting ways to operationalize them. Those that adopt the ethics framework are particularly weak in laying out standards for accountability, often focusing on ‘transparency’, and remaining silent on enforceability and participation which would effectively protect the social good. These guidelines mention human rights as a rhetorical device to obscure the absence of enforceable standards and accountability measures, and give their attention to the single right to privacy. These ‘ethics’ guidelines, disproportionately from corporations and other interest groups, are also weak on addressing inequalities and discrimination. We argue that voluntary guidelines are creating a set of de facto norms and re‐interpretation of the term ‘human rights’ for what would be considered ‘ethical’ practice in the field. This exposes an urgent need for action by governments and civil society to develop more rigorous standards and regulatory measures, grounded in international human rights frameworks, capable of holding Big Tech and other powerful actors to account.

show abstract

Section: Human Rights Approach To Aimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Human Rights Approach To Aimentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging Consensus on ‘Ethical AI’: Human Rights Critique of Stakeholder Guidelines

Fukuda‐Parr

Gibbons

2021

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 There have also been concerns about (mis)uses of digital technology measures during pandemic and non-pandemic situations. Many have voiced concerns regarding the short-term and long-term potentials of these technologies, including undermining human rights, 7 threatening our fundamental values, 8 9 inequitable targeting of oppressed and racialised communities, 10 biases embedded in coding leading to discriminatory practices, [11][12][13] inequitable power structures 14 and engendering a false sense of security. 15 Researchers, human rights advocates and knowledge leaders in digital technology are insistent that governments and healthcare decision-makers balance technological innovation as a pandemic response with transparency, diligence and attentiveness to issues of data standards, ethics, equity and human rights to effectively address the short-term and long-term implications on health and issues that determine health.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital technology and disease surveillance in the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionInfectious diseases pose a risk to public health, requiring efficient strategies for disease prevention. Digital health surveillance technologies provide new opportunities to enhance disease prevention, detection, tracking, reporting and analysis. However, in addition to concerns regarding the effectiveness of these technologies in meeting public health goals, there are also concerns regarding the ethics, legality, safety and sustainability of digital surveillance technologies. This scoping review examines the literature on digital surveillance for public health purposes during the COVID-19 pandemic to identify health-related applications of digital surveillance technologies, and to highlight discussions of the implications of these technologies.Methods and analysisThe scoping review will be guided by the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley and the guidelines outlined by Colquhoun et al and Levac et al. We will search Medline (Ovid), PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ACM Digital Library, Google Scholar and IEEE Explore for relevant studies published between December 2019 and December 2020. The review will also include grey literature. Data will be managed and analysed through an extraction table and thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationFindings will be disseminated through traditional academic channels, as well as social media channels and research briefs and infographics. We will target our dissemination to provincial and federal public health organisations, as well as technology companies and community-based organisations managing the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

show abstract

“…Disparities may also be exacerbated when public health leaders neglect to anticipate how internal DTs can perpetuate socio-economic inequities, or when practitioners are precluded from employing DTs to inform action due to insufficient technical expertise, infrastructure, or funding to access these DTs. Additionally, undiscerning usage of DTs can fail to consider the contextual power dynamics in which they operate (Sinha and Schryer-Roy 2018 ), reflect discriminatory racial and gender value judgements (Smith et al 2020 ), and reinforce the social gradients of health (Crawford and Serhal 2020 ). The COVID-19 pandemic offers a stark reminder of the benefits, the limitations, and the imperative of thinking through DTs as they become more ubiquitous in public health (Kofler and Baylis 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the imperative of thinking through the ethical, health equity, and social justice possibilities and limits of digital technologies in public health

Gómez-Ramírez

Iyamu

Ablona

et al. 2021

Can J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated both the positive and negative use, usefulness, and impact of digital technologies in public health. Digitalization can help advance and sustain the core functions of public health, including health promotion and prevention, epidemiological surveillance, and response to emergent health issues. Digital technologies are thus—in some areas of public discourse—presented as being both necessary and inevitable requirements to address routine and emergency public health issues. However, the circumstances, ways, and extent to which they apply remain a subject of critical reflection and empirical investigation. In this commentary, we argue that we must think through the use of digital technologies in public health and that their usefulness must be assessed in relation to their short- and long-term ethical, health equity, and social justice implications. Neither a sense of digital technological optimism and determinism nor the demands of addressing pressing public health issues should override critical assessment before development and implementation. The urgency of addressing public health emergencies such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic requires prompt and effective action, including action facilitated by digital technologies. Nevertheless, a sense of urgency cannot be an excuse or a substitute for a critical assessment of the tools employed.

show abstract

Four equity considerations for the use of artificial intelligence in public health

Cited by 28 publications

References 7 publications

Emerging Consensus on ‘Ethical AI’: Human Rights Critique of Stakeholder Guidelines

Emerging Consensus on ‘Ethical AI’: Human Rights Critique of Stakeholder Guidelines

Digital technology and disease surveillance in the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol

On the imperative of thinking through the ethical, health equity, and social justice possibilities and limits of digital technologies in public health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About