ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Stakeholder Perspectives of Implementation Barriers of Artificial Intelligence in Eye Care: A qualitative framework-based study.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDespite the revolution of artificial intelligence (AI), its integration remains limited in healthcare. A comprehensive understanding of the barriers to implementation is crucial to enhance the utilisation of AI. This study applies a conceptual framework-based analysis, to explore stakeholder perspectives of implementation barriers of AI in digital diagnosis in eye care.
methodsPurposive sampling was used to identify key individuals across stakeholder groups, including technology developers, clinicians, patients and healthcare leaders. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 37 stakeholders. Using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), responses to the question: 'What is the biggest barrier to digital diagnosis or AI for macular disease in Australia?' were analysed. Barriers identified by stakeholders were mapped to thematic constructs of the updated CFIR, and the prominence of each implementation barrier was measured. Data saturation was not assessed.
resultsFor clinicians and developers, the 'innovation' domain was most frequently cited. Clinicians were most concerned with the costs involved, whereas for developers, a lack of evidence surrounding real-world application was the main challenge. For leaders and patients, 'individuals' domain was the most frequently cited. Leaders were focused on the innovation deliverers: expressing the potential risk of over-reliance on the innovation and the subsequent consequence of clinician deskilling. Patients were more concerned about innovation recipients: emphasising the perceived lack of human empathy with the implementation of AI.
conclusionsDifferences were revealed in the identified barriers to the implementation of AI across stakeholder groups. A co-design approach to address the misalignment in key barriers may be essential to the successful implementation of AI in digital health innovations.
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.