Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

AI-augmented health literacy framework targets clinician, patient, and governance gapsNew framework aims to improve how patients and doctors use AI

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider the proposed AI literacy framework as a hypothesis needing validation, not a proven model.

This narrative review addresses the gap between rapid AI deployment in healthcare and the lack of corresponding human capacity building. The authors propose a conceptual framework for AI-augmented health literacy targeting three tiers: clinicians, patients, and governance professionals. Six key literacy dimensions are identified: algorithmic literacy, bias awareness, data governance understanding, critical appraisal of AI outputs, trust calibration, and explainability interpretation.

The review also assesses existing measurement tools, notably the eHEALS, and finds they lack AI-specific competencies and measure perceived rather than actual skills. The authors highlight a disconnect between legal harmonization efforts and stakeholder comprehension.

A major limitation acknowledged by the authors is that the proposed three-tier framework is a governance hypothesis requiring empirical validation, not a conclusion established by available evidence. The review does not report any safety data or funding sources.

Practice relevance: The review suggests that responsible AI in healthcare requires concurrent investment in human capacity building (literacy) alongside technical and regulatory development. Clinicians should interpret the framework as a conceptual starting point, not a validated model.

As artificial intelligence enters the doctor's office, many people worry about whether it is safe or how it actually works. A recent review found that current tools used to measure these skills are lacking. These existing tools often measure how much a person thinks they know rather than their actual ability to handle AI technology safely.

The researchers identified six key areas where people need more knowledge, including understanding bias, data governance, and how to judge the accuracy of AI outputs. To address this, they proposed a three-tier framework. This model suggests that doctors, patients, and those in charge of healthcare systems all need their own specific types of training to use these tools responsibly.

It is important to note that this new three-tier plan is currently a theory for how to manage the system. It has not been tested in real-world trials yet. The goal is to move beyond just having the technology and start building the human skills needed to make it work safely for everyone.

What this means for you:
New research suggests a three-tier approach to help patients and doctors better understand and use AI tools.

Common questions

What are the main risks of using AI in healthcare without proper training?

The review suggests that a lack of specific skills can lead to implementation failures. Without understanding things like bias awareness, data governance, and how to critically judge AI outputs, it is harder for both patients and doctors to use these tools safely.

How does the new three-tier framework work?

The proposed framework divides literacy into three specific areas: clinician AI literacy, patient AI literacy, and governance AI literacy. This aims to ensure that everyone involved in healthcare has the specific knowledge they need for their unique roles.

Are current tools good at measuring if people can use AI?

The review found that existing measurement tools lack specific competencies for AI. These current tools often measure how much a person perceives they know rather than their actual, practical skills in using the technology.

Study Details

Study typeSystematic review
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedJul 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming how healthcare is delivered, but there is mounting evidence revealing a critical gap between technical sophistication and the human capacity to deploy, interpret, and govern these systems responsibly. Current ethical AI frameworks emphasize fairness, transparency, and accountability but they miss a foundational prerequisite: stakeholder AI literacy. This paper proposes a conceptual framework positioning digital health literacy, specifically AI-augmented health literacy, as the measurable literacy competencies among clinicians, patients, and governance professionals, even in ethically designed AI systems will fail to achieve trustworthy deployment. This paper is a critical narrative review with a normative governance purpose. This paper integrates evidence from three domains (1) documented AI failures in healthcare due to literacy gaps (2) systematic reviews of digital health literacy measurement tools revealing their inadequacy in the context of AI (3) insights from European data governance (General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR], European Health Data Space [EHDS] and AI Act) illustrating that legal harmonization without stakeholder comprehension produces fragmented, ineffective governance. The analysis of high-profile AI implementation failures suggest a recurring pattern in which literacy deficits at critical decision points may have been a contributing factor. Current measurement tools, including the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS, developed 2006), lack AI-specific competencies and measure perceived instead of actual skills. We identify six AI literacy dimensions lacking in existing instruments, namely algorithmic literacy, bias awareness, data governance understanding, critical appraisal of AI outputs, trust calibration, and explainability interpretation. These findings suggests that responsible AI in healthcare may require concurrent investment in human capacity building alongside technical and regulatory development. This paper proposes a three-tier literacy framework, encompassing clinician AI literacy, patient AI literacy, and governance AI literacy, with sector-specific competencies and assessment strategies. The three-tier framework proposed here is offered as a governance hypothesis requiring empirical validation rather than as a conclusion already established by the available evidence.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.