Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Parul University, Gujarat, India
Department of CSIT, Jain (deemd to be University), Bangalore, India
College of Nursing, Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
The goal of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of the system for innovation and identify the reasons that prevent Artificial intelligence (AI) healthcare technology advancements connected to the life sciences sector from being implemented. To evaluate the structural and efficient dynamics of AI healthcare technology advances associated with the life science business in West Sweden, the socio-technical analytical framework of Technological innovation systems (TIS) was employed. Using a mixed-methods research methodology, the case study triangulates qualitative and quantitative information since subordinate distributed sources and discussions with twenty-one experts and twenty-five life science industry leaders. According to the findings, the functioning of the innovation system is largely constrained by its limitations, which include a lack of resources and inadequate statements from top healthcare experts about their requirements for advancing healthcare via the use of AI technological advances. This research demonstrates that to enhance the performance of the innovation system, governmental interventions aimed at expanding the pool of resources as well as creating vision and purpose statements for the advancement of healthcare via AI technology breakthroughs may be promoted. By using the socio-technical TIS paradigm in a hospital setting, this research advances our knowledge of the processes and interdependencies across system works.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.