Algorithmic governance in artificial intelligence-driven health systems: A southern African perspective

Main Article Content

S Naidoo
R Naidoo

Abstract




The use of algorithmic systems in public health is expanding rapidly in southern Africa, particularly in areas such as disease prediction, resource allocation and personalised healthcare. While these technologies offer efficiencies, their outputs are shaped by the quality, representativeness and governance of the underlying data. Tools such as polygenic risk scores and pathogen genomics often underperform in black African populations owing to under‐representation in genomic datasets, limiting clinical accuracy and access to precision health benefits. In low‐ and middle‐income countries, these disparities are amplified by fragmented health data systems, limited digital infrastructure, and weak regulatory oversight. Such conditions undermine the ability to detect and correct algorithmic bias, increasing the risk that digital health tools perpetuate inequities affecting rural, low‐income and marginalised populations. In this context, algorithmic systems may unintentionally reinforce existing health disparities. This commentary draws on the concept of biopolitics to highlight how algorithmic tools classify and manage populations through data‐driven processes. It emphasises the need for greater transparency, inclusion and accountability in the development and deployment of these technologies. Aligning health technology assessment processes with equity‐driven metrics and locally governed standards is essential to ensure that algorithmic governance supports, rather than undermines, equitable public health outcomes in the region.




Article Details

Section

Forum

How to Cite

Algorithmic governance in artificial intelligence-driven health systems: A southern African perspective. (2026). South African Journal of Public Health, 8(3), e3530. https://doi.org/10.7196/SHS.2026.v8i3.3530

References

1. Hunter DJ, Holmes C. Where medical statistics meets artificial intelligence. N Engl J Med 2023;389(13):1211‐1219. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra2212850

2. Delgado J, de Manuel A, Parra I, et al. Bias in algorithms of AI systems developed for COVID‐19: A scoping review. J Bioeth Inq 2022;19(3):407‐419. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11673‐022‐10200‐z

3. Wesson P, Hswen Y, Valdes G, Stojanovski K, Handley MA. Risks and opportunities to ensure equity in the application of big data research in public health. Annu Rev Public Health 2022;43(1):59‐78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐publhealth‐051920‐110928

4. Rabinow P, Rose N. Biopower today. BioSocieties 2006;1(2):195‐217. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1745855206040014

5. Foucault M. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978‐1979. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

6. Chin MH, Afsar‐Manesh N, Bierman AS, et al. Guiding principles to address the impact of algorithm bias on racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care. JAMA Netw Open 2023;6(12):e2345050. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.45050

7. Bentley AR, Callier S, Rotimi C. The emergence of genomic research in Africa and new frameworks for equity in biomedical research. Ethn Dis 2019;29(Suppl 1):179‐186. https:// doi.org/10.18865/ed.29.S1.179

8. Martin AR, Kanai M, Kamatani Y, Okada Y, Neale BM, Daly MJ. Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities. Nat Genet 2019;51(4):584‐591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588‐019‐0379‐x

9. Naidoo S, Bottomley D, Naidoo M, Donnelly D, Thaldar DW. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Proposals for policy development in South Africa. S Afr J Bioeth Law 2022;15(1):11‐16. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2022.v15i1.797

10. Hussain SA, Bresnahan M, Zhuang J. The bias algorithm: How AI in healthcare exacerbates ethnic and racial disparities – a scoping review. Ethn Health 2025;30(2):197‐214. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2024.2422848

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.