ABSTRACT
Background The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice holds transformative potential for healthcare in West Africa, but safe deployment requires context-appropriate governance, accountability, and post-deployment monitoring frameworks. This cross-sectional mixed-methods study examined preferences and concerns of West African clinicians and technical experts regarding AI governance structures, post-deployment surveillance mechanisms, and accountability allocation.
Methods A structured questionnaire was administered to 136 physicians affiliated with the West African College of Physicians (February 22-28, 2026), complemented by 72 key informant interviews with technical leads, AI developers, data scientists, policymakers, and healthcare leaders. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, inferential tests, and thematic analysis.
Results Clinicians strongly preferred independent regulatory bodies (40.4%) for overseeing AI tool performance, with high trust ratings (mean:4.3/5), while vendor self-monitoring received minimal support (3.7%, mean:2.4/5). Real-time dashboards were the most favored monitoring approach (41.9%). Clear accountability pathways (94.1%), algorithm transparency (91.9%), and real-time performance data (89.7%) were rated essential by majorities. Major concerns included clinicians being unfairly blamed for AI errors (76.5%), excessive vendor control (72.8%), and absence of clear reporting pathways (69.9%). Qualitative findings emphasized continuous performance tracking for accuracy, fairness, and bias; structured incident reporting; protocols for model drift and failure; and multi-layered governance combining independent oversight, institutional AI committees, and explicit liability frameworks.
Conclusion This study provides the first empirical evidence from West Africa on clinician preferences for AI governance. Findings offer actionable guidance for policymakers to build trustworthy, equitable, and safe AI integration frameworks that prioritize transparency, independent oversight, and clinician protection.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Clearance Committee of the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital (ethical clearance number UNTH/HREC/2026/01/4157).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Email: bscuzochukwu{at}gmail.com, ycherima{at}gmail.com, doctorenebeli{at}yahoo.com, cecelia.okeke{at}unn.edu.ng, adaora.uzochukwu{at}unn.edu.ng, doctoramobiomoha{at}gmail.com, blessinghassan21{at}gmail.com, eronu.majiyebo{at}uniabuja.edu.ng, smyusuf{at}abu.edu.ng, uzochukwu.kennedy{at}gmail.com, drkaluiche51{at}gmail.com
