Abstract
Background
Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force across the health sector and has garnered significant attention within sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) due to polarizing views on its opportunities to advance care and the heightened risks and implications it brings to people’s well-being and bodily autonomy. As the fields of AI and SRHR evolve, clarity is needed to bridge our understanding of how AI is being used within this historically politicized health area and raise visibility on the critical issues that can facilitate its responsible and meaningful use.
Objective
This paper presents the protocol for a scoping review to synthesize empirical studies that focus on the intersection of AI and SRHR. The review aims to identify the characteristics of AI systems and tools applied within SRHR, regarding health domains, intended purpose, target users, AI data life cycle, and evidence on benefits and harms.
Methods
The scoping review follows the standard methodology developed by Arksey and O’Malley. We will search the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Inclusion criteria comprise the use of AI systems and tools in sexual and reproductive health and clear methodology describing either quantitative or qualitative approaches, including program descriptions. Studies will be excluded if they focus entirely on digital interventions that do not explicitly use AI systems and tools, are about robotics or nonhuman subjects, or are commentaries. We will not exclude articles based on geographic location, language, or publication date. The study will present the uses of AI across sexual and reproductive health domains, the intended purpose of the AI system and tools, and maturity within the AI life cycle. Outcome measures will be reported on the effect, accuracy, acceptability, resource use, and feasibility of studies that have deployed and evaluated AI systems and tools. Ethical and legal considerations, as well as findings from qualitative studies, will be synthesized through a narrative thematic analysis. We will use the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) format for the publication of the findings.
Results
The database searches resulted in 12,793 records when the searches were conducted in October 2023. Screening is underway, and the analysis is expected to be completed by July 2024.
Conclusions
The findings will provide key insights on usage patterns and evidence on the use of AI in SRHR, as well as convey key ethical, safety, and legal considerations. The outcomes of this scoping review are contributing to a technical brief developed by the World Health Organization and will guide future research and practice in this highly charged area of work.
Trial Registration
OSF Registries osf.io/ma4d9; https://osf.io/ma4d9
International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)
PRR1-10.2196/53888
Keywords: artificial intelligence, AI, sexual health, reproductive health, maternal health, gender, machine learning, natural language processing, review, systematic documentation, protocol, scoping review, electronic database, technical consultation, intervention, methodology, qualitative, World Health Organization, WHO, decision-making
Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to the development of algorithms, processes, machines, and computer programs capable of performing automated tasks, without the programming of each step explicitly by a human [1,2]. Advances in computing processing combined with the amassing of data through digital tools, particularly with increases in the penetration of mobile devices, have propelled the field of AI within health [3-6]. AI includes approaches such as machine learning, in which statistical and mathematical modeling techniques are used to define and analyze data. This can also be applied through natural language processing to analyze text-based data and signal processing for audio, images, and videos [6,7]. The use of AI varies across health fields, with radiology and pathology being the dominant areas where machine learning has been leveraged to optimize the processing of large volumes of medical imaging data [6,7]. Recent advancements in AI, particularly generative AI and large language models, have expanded the ability to address a diverse set of health needs.
The field of sexual and reproductive health encompasses health domains, such as family planning and fertility care, maternal health, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), safe abortion care, sexual health and well-being, and gender-based violence [8,9]. It is underpinned by broader principles of bodily autonomy, human rights, women’s empowerment, and gender equality, encapsulated as sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) [10]. Considering the perceived sensitivity and often politicization of these health topics beyond the influence of technology, the use of AI in SRHR is an emerging area with both great potential and justifiable concerns. Individuals’ desires for anonymity in seeking sexual and reproductive health services positions AI systems and tools, such as conversational agents, as critical conduits for expanding access to information and care [11-13]. Furthermore, shortfalls in human resources and the need for targeted health interventions, such as in the areas of maternal health care and management of STIs, serve as key issues that have the potential to be addressed through the predictive capabilities offered by AI [14]. In addition, the use of AI to power “software as a medical device” [15] presents an opportunity to leapfrog access to diagnostic devices, such as ultrasounds [16] and blood pressure equipment [17]. This has also been seen with the emergence of contraceptive and fertility software applications [18,19], which are increasingly securing regulatory approvals from national authorities [20,21].
The convergence of AI in SRHR also presents heightened risks and implications. This is especially evident as the use of underlying health data raises concerns about infringements on women’s health and bodily autonomy, as well as the potential misuse of this technology for surveillance of populations in vulnerable situations. Furthermore, existing challenges in digital health implementation [22], including biases, limited inclusivity, and gender disparities, could be exacerbated with the introduction of AI [6,23-25]. As such, the intersection of AI and SRHR raises nuanced implications and warrants close examination of the current landscape to highlight the evidence base and document the ethical, regulatory, and human rights considerations. This scoping review will build on the general literature of AI in health and focus specifically on how AI is being used within SRHR, including evidence on effect and related considerations to inform a comprehensive understanding of the state of the field.
Methods
Overview
We will conduct a scoping review using the established methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley [26] that includes (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. Considering this is an emerging area of research, we will also include a stakeholder consultation to inform the discussion. We will follow the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) format for the publication of the findings [27].
Stage 1: Identifying Research Questions
This scoping review aims to explore the range of ways in which AI is being applied in SRHR and synthesize the key considerations to ensure its effective, safe, and ethical use. The research questions for this review include the following:
Patterns and characteristics of use: How are AI systems and tools being applied to SRHR, in terms of health domains, intended purpose (eg, screening, counseling, forecasting), target users, and AI data life cycle?
Evidence on harms and benefits: What are the effect, acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and implications on gender, equity, and rights of AI systems and tools used in SRHR?
Ethical, legal, and safety implications: What are the ethical, legal, and safety considerations specific to the use of AI systems and tools in SRHR?
Stage 2: Identifying Relevant Studies
To identify relevant studies for inclusion, we will search the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL. In addition, we will use citation searching from relevant articles to identify sources that may not have been retrieved in our original search.
The search strategy will be a combination of constructs related to AI and SRHR. An overview of search terms is presented in Multimedia Appendix 1. We will leverage search strategies and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used in other scoping reviews focused on AI in health care [28-32]. Considering this is an emerging topic, we will not set a start date for the search.
Stage 3: Study Selection
We will conduct a 2-step abstract and title screening following the eligibility criteria in Textbox 1. We will use Covidence, a standard web-based screening and extraction tool, to manage the screening process.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria
Studies reporting on artificial intelligence (AI) applications to aspects of sexual and reproductive health and rights
Clearly described methodology; we will include quantitative studies, qualitative studies, and program evaluations and descriptions
Exclusion criteria
Focus exclusively on digital interventions (eg, traditional text messaging or targeted client communication) that do not explicitly use AI systems and tools
Focus on health care robotics or nonhuman studies
Commentaries, opinion pieces, and editorials
We will not exclude manuscripts based on geographic location, language, or publication date. Commentaries, opinions, and editorials that do not have an underlying empirical basis will be excluded to adjust for potential subjectivity and bias. In addition to using Covidence, we will search the citations of included studies to identify relevant articles that may have been overlooked in our initial search.
All references will be collated into a single reference manager (EndNote), where duplicate entries will be removed. Articles will be screened independently by 2 coauthors. Identified discrepancies will be resolved through discussion, and, if needed, escalated to a coauthor for arbitration.
Stage 4: Charting the Data
We will develop a data extraction sheet to standardize the retrieval of information in alignment with the research questions (Table 1). The data extraction form will be developed by adapting common themes from other scoping reviews on AI [31,33], as well as reviewing requirements from digital health reporting checklists [34,35], information on the intervention, including how AI was applied to SRHR, the specific SRHR domains of interest, population, geographic coverage, implementation challenges, outcomes, and ethical and legal considerations.
Table 1.
Categories for data extraction.
Category | Illustrative information to be extracted | Relevant research questions |
Article information |
|
|
SRHRa health domain |
|
|
Targeted population |
|
|
Intended purpose of AIb | The intended purposes for using AI:
|
|
AI life cycle | Stages of AI development and evaluation [36]:
|
|
Algorithm development and models |
|
|
Outcomes and findings |
|
|
Implications |
|
|
aSRHR: sexual and reproductive health and rights.
bAI: artificial intelligence.
Stage 5: Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting the Results
We will collate and summarize information from the data extraction sheets. The results will present the general patterns of use of AI in SRHR, including the specific health domains for which AI is being applied, the intended purpose of the AI system and tools, and maturity within the AI life cycle. We will use established frameworks, including the continuum of care and SRHR conceptual model for categorizing health domains [8,9] and the AI life cycle to map the maturity of AI systems and tools in use [36].
To assess evidence on harms and benefits, studies will first be tagged based on their AI life cycle [36] to distinguish between interventions that are in the early stages of model development and validation versus those that have been implemented and evaluated. We will extract outcomes on the subset of studies identified as being in the model deployment and evaluation phases of the AI life cycle [36]. The type of outcome data to be extracted will be guided by the domains of the Evidence to Decision framework, including accuracy, effect, acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and gender equity and rights [37]. Where possible, we will pool findings across similar outcome measures and present a summary of findings on outcomes related to accuracy and effect. We will conduct a thematic analysis on ethical, legal, and safety considerations, as well as on findings from qualitative studies.
Results
The database searches described above resulted in 12,793 records when the searches were conducted in October 2023. Screening is underway, and the analysis is expected to be completed by July 2024.
Discussion
Building on the broader literature on AI and health, findings from this review will provide fundamental insights into the usage patterns, implications, and evidence related to AI in SRHR, as well as highlight key considerations and risks. A key strength of this review is the composition of a multidisciplinary authorship team to ensure both the technological and SRHR perspectives are appropriately reflected. Moreover, this scoping review serves as a foundational resource to inform a technical brief developed by the World Health Organization [38] and to guide future research and practice. One limitation of this review is its focus on empirical studies, in which insights from the gray literature and AI consumer products may be overlooked if they are not reflected in the peer-reviewed literature. However, due to the high number of records in the search, we believe this scoping review can reliably provide a comprehensive overview of usage patterns and key implications.
The intersection of AI and SRHR has been fraught with concerns, particularly related to infringements on women’s reproductive health choices and the exacerbation of gender biases and inequity [39]. Meanwhile, technological advances hold great promise for overcoming longstanding challenges in access to and provision of SRHR services. This systematic analysis of AI in SRHR seeks to facilitate clarity and nuanced discussion in this highly charged field and direct efforts toward responsibly and meaningfully harnessing of AI to address SRHR needs and the broader goals of universal health coverage.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge Rebecca Carlson and Kavita Kothari for serving as the information specialists in developing and conducting the search strategy. We thank Ana Pilar Betran and Agata Ferretti for their guidance in discussing the eligibility criteria. We are grateful to the participants from the World Health Organization technical consultation on artificial intelligence and sexual and reproductive health and rights for their insights and expertise in refining the taxonomies underpinning the extraction of studies. This work is funded by the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, a cosponsored program executed by the World Health Organization.
Abbreviations
- AI
artificial intelligence
- PRISMA-ScR
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews
- MeSH
Medical Subject Headings
- SRHR
sexual and reproductive health and rights
- STI
sexually transmitted infection
Search strategy.
Data Availability
Access to the Covidence database can be made available after the publication of findings by emailing srhhrp@who.int and through a mutually signed agreement.
Footnotes
Authors' Contributions: TT developed the protocol and manuscript with input from YZ, DS, SA, SP, and LS. All authors have made substantial intellectual contributions in developing the manuscript and have reviewed and approved it for submission and publication.
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
References
- 1.Russell SJ. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 3rd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Regulatory considerations on artificial intelligence for health. World Health Organization. 2023. [2024-03-22]. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/373421 .
- 3.Benke K, Benke G. Artificial intelligence and big data in public health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Dec 10;15(12):2796. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122796. https://www.mdpi.com/resolver?pii=ijerph15122796 .ijerph15122796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Schwalbe N, Wahl B. Artificial intelligence and the future of global health. Lancet. 2020 May;395(10236):1579–1586. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30226-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Haug CJ, Drazen JM. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in clinical medicine, 2023. N Engl J Med. 2023 Mar 30;388(13):1201–1208. doi: 10.1056/nejmra2302038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. World Health Organization. 2021. Jun 28, [2024-03-22]. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240029200 .
- 7.Okeibunor JC, Jaca A, Iwu-Jaja CJ, Idemili-Aronu N, Ba H, Zantsi ZP, Ndlambe AM, Mavundza E, Muneene D, Wiysonge CS, Makubalo L. The use of artificial intelligence for delivery of essential health services across WHO regions: a scoping review. Front Public Health. 2023 Jul 4;11:1102185. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1102185. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/37469694 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Sexual health and its linkages to reproductive health: an operational approach. World Health Organization. 2017. Sep 20, [2024-03-22]. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/978924151288 .
- 9.Sexual and reproductive health interventions in the WHO UHC Compendium. World Health Organization. 2021. Apr 05, [2024-03-28]. https://who.int/publications/i/item/9789240022867 .
- 10.Coates A, Allotey P. Global health, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and gender: square pegs, round holes. BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Jan 18;8(1):e011710. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-011710. https://gh.bmj.com/lookup/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=36653069 .bmjgh-2023-011710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Nadarzynski T, Bayley J, Llewellyn C, Kidsley S, Graham CA. Acceptability of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled chatbots, video consultations and live webchats as online platforms for sexual health advice. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2020 Jul 21;46(3):210–217. doi: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2018-200271. https://jfprhc.bmj.com/lookup/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=31964779 .bmjsrh-2018-200271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Wang H, Gupta S, Singhal A, Muttreja P, Singh S, Sharma P, Piterova A. An artificial intelligence chatbot for young people’s sexual and reproductive health in India (SnehAI): instrumental case study. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jan 03;24(1):e29969. doi: 10.2196/29969. https://www.jmir.org/2022/1/e29969/ v24i1e29969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Mills R, Mangone ER, Lesh N, Mohan D, Baraitser P. Chatbots to improve sexual and reproductive health: realist synthesis. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Aug 09;25:e46761. doi: 10.2196/46761. https://www.jmir.org/2023//e46761/ v25i1e46761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Young SD, Crowley JS, Vermund SH. Artificial intelligence and sexual health in the USA. Lancet Digit Health. 2021 Aug;3(8):e467–e468. doi: 10.1016/s2589-7500(21)00117-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Angehrn Z, Haldna L, Zandvliet AS, Gil Berglund E, Zeeuw J, Amzal B, Cheung SYA, Polasek TM, Pfister M, Kerbusch T, Heckman NM. Artificial intelligence and machine learning applied at the point of care. Front Pharmacol. 2020 Jun 18;11:759. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00759. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32625083 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Shen Y, Chen L, Yue W, Xu H. Artificial intelligence in ultrasound. Eur J Radiol. 2021 Jun;139:109717. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109717.S0720-048X(21)00197-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Festo C, Vannevel V, Ali H, Tamrat T, Mollel GJ, Hlongwane T, Fahmida KA, Alland K, Barreix M, Mehrtash H, Silva R, Thwin SS, Mehl G, Labrique AB, Masanja H, Tunçalp Ӧzge. Accuracy of a smartphone application for blood pressure estimation in Bangladesh, South Africa, and Tanzania. NPJ Digit Med. 2023 Apr 17;6(1):69. doi: 10.1038/s41746-023-00804-z. doi: 10.1038/s41746-023-00804-z.10.1038/s41746-023-00804-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Karakoyun T, Podhaisky H, Frenz A, Schuhmann-Giampieri G, Ushikusa T, Schröder Daniel, Zvolanek M, Lopes Da Silva Filho A. Digital medical device companion (MyIUS) for new users of intrauterine systems: app development study. JMIR Med Inform. 2021 Jul 13;9(7):e24633. doi: 10.2196/24633. https://medinform.jmir.org/2021/7/e24633/ v9i7e24633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.McMillan C. Rethinking the regulation of digital contraception under the medical devices regime. Medical Law International. 2023 Feb 11;23(1):3–25. doi: 10.1177/09685332231154581. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Fertility awareness method. Family Planning Australia. 2021. Jan 28, [2024-03-22]. https://www.fpnsw.org.au/media-news/blog/2021-01-28-fertility-awareness-method .
- 21.FDA allows marketing of first direct-to-consumer app for contraceptive use to prevent pregnancy. US Food & Drug Administration. 2018. Aug 10, [2024-03-22]. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-allows-marketing-first-direct-consumer-app-contraceptive-use-prevent-pregnancy .
- 22.Bacchus LJ, Reiss K, Church K, Colombini M, Pearson E, Naved R, Smith C, Andersen K, Free C. Using digital technology for sexual and reproductive health: are programs adequately considering risk? Glob Health Sci Pract. 2019 Dec 23;7(4):507–514. doi: 10.9745/ghsp-d-19-00239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Bauer GR, Lizotte DJ. Artificial intelligence, intersectionality, and the future of public health. Am J Public Health. 2021 Jan;111(1):98–100. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2020.306006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Safdar NM, Banja JD, Meltzer CC. Ethical considerations in artificial intelligence. Eur J Radiol. 2020 Jan;122:108768. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108768.S0720-048X(19)30418-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Buolamwini J, Gebru T. Gender shades: intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency; February 23-24; New York, NY. 2018. pp. 77–91. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html . [Google Scholar]
- 26.Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005 Feb;8(1):19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MD, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L, Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty C, Lewin S, Godfrey CM, Macdonald MT, Langlois EV, Soares-Weiser K, Moriarty J, Clifford T, Tunçalp. Straus SE. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 02;169(7):467–473. doi: 10.7326/m18-0850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.von Gerich H, Moen H, Block LJ, Chu CH, DeForest H, Hobensack M, Michalowski M, Mitchell J, Nibber R, Olalia MA, Pruinelli L, Ronquillo CE, Topaz M, Peltonen L. Artificial intelligence-based technologies in nursing: a scoping literature review of the evidence. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022 Mar;127:104153. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104153. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0020-7489(21)00298-4 .S0020-7489(21)00298-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Sharma M, Savage C, Nair M, Larsson I, Svedberg P, Nygren JM. Artificial intelligence applications in health care practice: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Oct 05;24(10):e40238. doi: 10.2196/40238. https://www.jmir.org/2022/10/e40238/ v24i10e40238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Bhatt P, Liu J, Gong Y, Wang J, Guo Y. Emerging artificial intelligence-empowered mhealth: scoping review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022 Jun 09;10(6):e35053. doi: 10.2196/35053. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e35053/ v10i6e35053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Takiddin A, Schneider J, Yang Y, Abd-Alrazaq A, Househ M. Artificial intelligence for skin cancer detection: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Nov 24;23(11):e22934. doi: 10.2196/22934. https://www.jmir.org/2021/11/e22934/ v23i11e22934 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Mörch C M, Atsu S, Cai W, Li X, Madathil S, Liu X, Mai V, Tamimi F, Dilhac M, Ducret M. Artificial intelligence and ethics in dentistry: a scoping review. J Dent Res. 2021 Dec 01;100(13):1452–1460. doi: 10.1177/00220345211013808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Chu CH, Leslie K, Shi J, Nyrup R, Bianchi A, Khan SS, Rahimi SA, Lyn A, Grenier A. Ageism and artificial intelligence: protocol for a scoping review. JMIR Res Protoc. 2022 Jun 09;11(6):e33211. doi: 10.2196/33211. https://www.researchprotocols.org/2022/6/e33211/ v11i6e33211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Perrin Franck C, Babington-Ashaye A, Dietrich D, Bediang G, Veltsos P, Gupta PP, Juech C, Kadam R, Collin M, Setian L, Serrano Pons J, Kwankam SY, Garrette B, Barbe S, Bagayoko CO, Mehl G, Lovis C, Geissbuhler A. iCHECK-DH: guidelines and checklist for the reporting on digital health implementations. J Med Internet Res. 2023 May 10;25:e46694. doi: 10.2196/46694. https://www.jmir.org/2023//e46694/ v25i1e46694 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Agarwal S, LeFevre AE, Lee J, L'Engle Kelly, Mehl G, Sinha C, Labrique A, WHO mHealth Technical Evidence Review Group Guidelines for reporting of health interventions using mobile phones: mobile health (mHealth) evidence reporting and assessment (mERA) checklist. BMJ. 2016 Mar 17;352:i1174. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i1174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Ng MY, Kapur S, Blizinsky KD, Hernandez-Boussard T. The AI life cycle: a holistic approach to creating ethical AI for health decisions. Nat Med. 2022 Nov 26;28(11):2247–2249. doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-01993-y. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/36163298 .10.1038/s41591-022-01993-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Moberg J, Oxman AD, Rosenbaum S, Schünemann Holger J, Guyatt G, Flottorp S, Glenton C, Lewin S, Morelli A, Rada G, Alonso-Coello P. The GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 May 29;16(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0320-2. https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-018-0320-2 .10.1186/s12961-018-0320-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.The role of artificial intelligence in sexual and reproductive health and rights: technical brief. World Health Organization. 2024. [2024-03-25]. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/376294/9789240090705-eng.pdf?sequence=1,
- 39.Khosla Rajat, Mishra Vidisha, Singh Sagri. Sexual and reproductive health and rights and bodily autonomy in a digital world. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2023 Dec 10;31(4):2269003. doi: 10.1080/26410397.2023.2269003. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/37930349 .ijerph15122796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Search strategy.
Data Availability Statement
Access to the Covidence database can be made available after the publication of findings by emailing srhhrp@who.int and through a mutually signed agreement.