Policy scan identifies gaps in governance and equity for generative AI in Canadian public health, suggesting reforms.
Introduction The integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into public health presents both opportunities and challenges, particularly regarding equity, human oversight, governance, and the environmental impact of its development and use. Despite its growing use, the policy infrastructure guiding GenAI in public health remains underdeveloped. Methods This study conducted a policy scan and content analysis to identify and analyze organizational policies across local, provincial, federal, and international levels that address the use of GenAI in Canadian public health contexts. A content analysis was used to identify trends and gaps across policy focus, governance objectives and approach, ethical considerations and risk mitigation, and implementation and sustainability considerations. Results Fourteen relevant policies were identified. While the majority addressed data privacy (86%), ethical governance (71%), transparency (86%), and fairness and bias (64%), most adopted a safety‐based approach (86%) rather than an equity‐based framework. Public engagement (21%), interdisciplinary collaboration (36%), and practitioner training (29%) were rarely included, limiting meaningful human oversight and participatory governance. Environmental considerations appeared in only 14% of policies, despite the resource‐intensive nature of GenAI technologies and the mandate of public health to protect the environment and its impact on human health. Conclusion Current GenAI governance policies risk reinforcing existing inequities and environmental harms. A shift toward participatory and equity‐centered policy design, grounded in co‐creation, interdisciplinary engagement, environmental justice, and meaningful community involvement, is essential for ensuring the responsible and trustworthy use of GenAI in public health.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
MacKay et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: