ArticleDigital health
"It's like dynamite-It can do a lot of good. It could do a lot of harm": A qualitative study on the uses, benefits, and risks of genAI in public health.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The adoption of genAI is rapidly evolving all sectors. In public health, emerging genAI technologies have shown promise in facilitating tailored communication, public health surveillance, and administration and decision making. However, adoption of genAI gives rise to several concerns, including the perpetuation of systemic inequities and erosion of public trust. The lack of clear guidelines and directives presents challenges for the responsible integration of genAI. Therefore, this study aims to: (1) explore the understanding of the application of genAI by public health professionals; (2) identify barriers and enablers to responsible genAI use; and (3) explore the perceived governance needs and opportunities for community engagement to guide the responsible and trustworthy implementation. Methods: A semistructured interview guide was iteratively developed, and Canadian public health professionals with experience in genAI technology were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling. All interviews were conducted between 5 June and 21 July 2025. Results: Data from 13 interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, from which 7 unique themes emerged: (1) uses of genAI and shift in priorities, (2) emerging skills demands, (3) shift in public health values, data use, and equity, (4) governance imperative, (5) organizational-level guidance, (6) importance of fostering trust, and (7) inclusion of community as co-creators. Conclusion: These themes offer insight into the complexities and challenges of responsible genAI adoption, underscoring the need for governance and organizational frameworks that support equitable, accountable, and transparent implementation within public health. These themes offer guidance to facilitate the responsible integration of genAI in public health and highlight the national organizational governance considerations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.