Background and Objectives: Diabetes is a global public health challenge, with increasing prevalence worldwide. The implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in the management of this condition offers potential benefits in improving healthcare outcomes. This study primarily investigates the barriers and facilitators perceived by healthcare professionals in the adoption of AI. Secondarily, by analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data collected, it aims to support the potential development of AI-based programs for diabetes management, with particular focus on a possible bottom-up approach. Materials and Methods: A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines for reporting and registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) database. The study selection process was conducted in two phases—title/abstract screening and full-text review—independently by three researchers, with a fourth resolving conflicts. Data were extracted and assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools. The included studies were synthesized narratively, combining both quantitative and qualitative analyses to ensure methodological rigor and contextual depth. Results: The adoption of AI tools in diabetes management is influenced by several barriers, including perceived unsatisfactory clinical performance, high costs, issues related to data security and decision-making transparency, as well as limited training among healthcare workers. Key facilitators include improved clinical efficiency, ease of use, time-saving, and organizational support, which contribute to broader acceptance of the technology. Conclusions: The active and continuous involvement of healthcare workers represents a valuable opportunity to develop more effective, reliable, and well-integrated AI solutions in clinical practice. Our findings emphasize the importance of a bottom-up approach and highlight how adequate training and organizational support can help overcome existing barriers, promoting sustainable and equitable innovation aligned with public health priorities.
Cangelosi et al. (Fri,) studied this question.