Advances in medical education and practice · 2026
Analysis of Generative Artificial Intelligence Governance in Publicly Available Documentation of Global and Saudi Universities Offering Health Informatics Programs.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alhur Anas Ali, Al-Kahtani Nouf Khalid
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has rapidly entered higher education, prompting universities to publish policies and guidance for its responsible use. Little is known about how GenAI is governed within Health Informatics and related programs, or how international and Saudi institutions compare.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze and compare publicly available GenAI governance in global and Saudi universities offering Health Informatics and related programs, focusing on policy availability, governance-domain coverage, and gaps.
METHODS: A qualitative document analysis and comparative policy analysis were conducted. Thirty international universities (selected via the QS World University Rankings by Subject 2025) and sixteen eligible Saudi institutions offering Health Informatics, Health Information Management, Digital Health, or related programs were included. Publicly available governance sources-comprising formal policy documents and web-based institutional guidance-were retrieved from official institutional websites between March and May 2026 and analyzed using directed qualitative content analysis across nine governance domains. Inter-coder reliability was almost perfect (Cohen's κ = 0.96), and group comparisons were tested using Fisher's exact test.
RESULTS: In total, 117 governance sources met the inclusion criteria (111 international; 6 Saudi). All international universities (30/30) had publicly available GenAI governance, versus six of sixteen Saudi universities (37.5%). International coverage was significantly greater for Transparency and Disclosure (87.4% vs 33.3%; p=0.005), Ethical Considerations (91.9% vs 50.0%; p=0.014), and AI Literacy and Capacity Building (81.1% vs 33.3%; p=0.019). Program-specific Health Informatics governance appeared at only two international institutions and no Saudi universities; clinical-data-governance provisions were absent from all Saudi sources.
CONCLUSION: Based on publicly available documentation, international universities showed broader and deeper GenAI governance than Saudi institutions, with gaps in transparency, AI literacy, ethics, and Health Informatics-specific and clinical-data governance. Strengthening discipline-specific guidance may support responsible GenAI integration and digital-health workforce preparation.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze and compare publicly available GenAI governance in global and Saudi universities offering Health Informatics and related programs, focusing on policy availability, governance-domain coverage, and gaps.
METHODS: A qualitative document analysis and comparative policy analysis were conducted. Thirty international universities (selected via the QS World University Rankings by Subject 2025) and sixteen eligible Saudi institutions offering Health Informatics, Health Information Management, Digital Health, or related programs were included. Publicly available governance sources-comprising formal policy documents and web-based institutional guidance-were retrieved from official institutional websites between March and May 2026 and analyzed using directed qualitative content analysis across nine governance domains. Inter-coder reliability was almost perfect (Cohen's κ = 0.96), and group comparisons were tested using Fisher's exact test.
RESULTS: In total, 117 governance sources met the inclusion criteria (111 international; 6 Saudi). All international universities (30/30) had publicly available GenAI governance, versus six of sixteen Saudi universities (37.5%). International coverage was significantly greater for Transparency and Disclosure (87.4% vs 33.3%; p=0.005), Ethical Considerations (91.9% vs 50.0%; p=0.014), and AI Literacy and Capacity Building (81.1% vs 33.3%; p=0.019). Program-specific Health Informatics governance appeared at only two international institutions and no Saudi universities; clinical-data-governance provisions were absent from all Saudi sources.
CONCLUSION: Based on publicly available documentation, international universities showed broader and deeper GenAI governance than Saudi institutions, with gaps in transparency, AI literacy, ethics, and Health Informatics-specific and clinical-data governance. Strengthening discipline-specific guidance may support responsible GenAI integration and digital-health workforce preparation.