Exploring the Need for Medical Futures Studies: Insights From a Scoping Review of Health Care Foresight

Abstract

Background: The historical development and contemporary instances of futures studies, an interdisciplinary field that focuses on exploring and formulating alternative futures, exemplify the increasing significance of using futures methods in shaping the health care domain. Despite the wide array of these methodologies, there have been limited endeavors to employ them within the medical community thus far. Objective: We undertook the first scoping review to date about the application of futures methodologies and published foresight projects in health care. Methods: Through the use of the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) method, we identified 59 studies that were subsequently categorized into the following 5 distinct themes: national strategies (n=19), strategic health care foresight (n=15), health care policy and workforce dynamics (n=6), pandemic preparedness and response (n=7), and specialized medical domains (n=12). Results: Our scoping review revealed that the application of futures methods and foresight has been successfully demonstrated in a wide range of fields, including national strategies, policy formulation, global threat preparedness, and technological advancements. The results of our review indicate that a total of 8 futures methods have already been used in medicine and health care, while there are more than 50 futures methods available. It may underscore the notion that the field is unexploited. Furthermore, the absence of structured methodologies and principles for employing foresight and futures techniques in the health care domain warrants the creation of medical futures studies as a separate scientific subfield within the broad domains of health care, medicine, and life sciences. This subfield would focus on the analysis of emerging technological trends, the evaluation of policy implications, and the proactive anticipation and mitigation of potential challenges. Conclusions: Futures studies can significantly enhance medical science by addressing a crucial deficiency in the promotion of democratic participation, facilitating interdisciplinary dialogue, and shaping alternative futures. To further contribute to the development of a new research community in medical futures studies, it is recommended to establish a specialized scientific journal. Additionally, appointing dedicated futurists in decision-making and national strategy, and incorporating futures methods into the medical curriculum could be beneficial.