Background: The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare requires the establishing of robust legal safeguards to ensure safety, privacy, and non-discrimination, crucial for maintaining trust. Collaborative efforts across disciplines are essential for effective AI-governance; unaddressed differences in disciplinary perspectives and priorities risks impeding effective reform. Objective: To provide law and policymaking guidance by systematically mapping the legal concerns about health-AI raised by disciplines of medicine, law, nursing, pharmacy, other healthcare professions, public health, computer science, and engineering, revealing convergences and divergences in disciplinary comprehension, prioritization, and proposed solutions to legal issues. Design, data sources, and study selection: Employing a scoping review methodology, we searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), HeinOnline Law Journal Library, Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (HeinOnline), Index to Legal Periodicals and Books (EBSCOhost), Web of Science (Core Collection), Scopus, and IEEE Xplore, identifying relevant legal issue discussions published, in English or French, from January 2012 to July 2021. Of 18,168 screened studies, 432 were included for data extraction and analysis. Results: Critical disciplinary differences were evident in both the frequency and nature of discussions of legal issues and potential solutions. Notably, innovators in computer science and engineering exhibited minimal engagement with legal issues. Authors in law and medicine frequently contributed, but prioritized different legal issues and proposed different solutions. Conclusion: Discrepancies in perspectives regarding law reform priorities and solutions jeopardize the progress of health-AI development. We need inclusive, interdisciplinary dialogues concerning the risks and trade-offs associated with various solutions to ensure optimal law and policy reform.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-022-01939-y

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, and the Alex Trebek Forum for Dialogue

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors