In recent years, the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has captured global attention, promising unprecedented improvements in diagnostics, treatment personalization, and health system management. Yet as AI technologies rapidly evolve, developing countries such as Uganda face unique challenges and opportunities in harnessing these tools to advance public health objectives, particularly the ambitious goal of achieving universal health coverage (UHC). A new comprehensive study by K.G. Mugalula, published in the International Journal for Equity in Health, delves deeply into the regulatory landscape necessary to safely and effectively integrate AI within Uganda’s healthcare system. This investigation offers critical insights into balancing innovation with patient safety and equitable access in a resource-constrained environment.
Uganda, like many nations in sub-Saharan Africa, grapples with pervasive health inequities compounded by limited human resources and infrastructural deficits. AI technologies hold the promise of bridging gaps by augmenting clinical decision-making, streamlining administrative processes, and even enabling remote diagnosis through telemedicine platforms. However, unregulated adoption carries risks ranging from erroneous diagnoses due to biased algorithms to breaches of patient privacy. Mugalula’s work underscores that a nuanced regulatory framework is imperative—not just to mitigate risks but to foster an ecosystem where AI can truly enhance health equity rather than entrench existing disparities.
Central to Mugalula’s analysis is the recognition that Uganda’s regulatory systems are currently ill-equipped to address the complexities posed by AI in healthcare. Existing laws predominantly target traditional medical devices or pharmaceuticals, lacking specificity for AI’s unique challenges such as algorithmic transparency, data provenance, and ongoing model validation. The study points to the urgent need for regulatory mechanisms tailored to AI tools, ensuring they meet rigorous standards for safety, efficacy, and fairness. Crucially, these frameworks must be agile enough to accommodate the rapidly evolving AI landscape without stifling innovation.
The research highlights a multifaceted approach to regulation, advocating for the creation of a dedicated AI healthcare regulatory body or division within existing agencies. Such an entity would oversee AI-specific certification, continuous performance monitoring, and enforce compliance with ethical guidelines. Mugalula emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement, including policymakers, technologists, clinicians, patients, and civil society groups, to design regulations that reflect the local context and values. This inclusive strategy aims to build trust and promote transparency—cornerstones of successful AI integration.
Mugalula’s study also explores the role of data governance as a foundational pillar of AI regulation. Given that AI algorithms rely heavily on vast amounts of health data, issues of data privacy, consent, and ownership are paramount. Uganda currently lacks comprehensive legislation that addresses health data rights or sets standards for secure data sharing. Without robust data governance frameworks, AI applications risk exacerbating vulnerabilities by exposing sensitive patient information or perpetuating biases embedded within historical datasets. The paper calls for enacting clear policies that secure patients’ rights while enabling responsible data utilization.
Another critical dimension covered is the ethical and equity considerations linked to AI deployment. The study warns against a simplistic technological fix mentality that overlooks social determinants influencing health outcomes. AI systems trained on non-representative data risk delivering inequitable care recommendations, further marginalizing underserved populations. Mugalula advocates embedding fairness audits and bias detection protocols within regulatory processes. Additionally, strategies to build digital literacy and AI competency among frontline healthcare workers are emphasized to ensure informed adoption and oversight.
Significantly, the paper situates AI regulation within Uganda’s broader health system strengthening agenda aimed at UHC. AI should not be viewed merely as a standalone gadget but as a system enabler that complements human expertise and improves health service delivery efficiency. Regulatory frameworks must therefore facilitate interoperability with existing health information systems, promote equitable access across rural and urban areas, and align with national health priorities. Mugalula’s framework recommends iterative policy development with continuous feedback loops from implementation experiences to refine regulatory approaches dynamically.
Cross-border and international regulatory considerations also feature prominently. Uganda’s health challenges are interconnected with regional dynamics, and many AI solutions are developed abroad or depend on global data networks. The study calls for harmonization efforts with East African Community standards and alignment with WHO digital health guidelines. Such cooperation can reduce regulatory fragmentation and ensure that imported AI tools meet consistent quality and safety benchmarks. Moreover, participation in global AI governance dialogues positions Uganda to shape standards reflecting low- and middle-income country perspectives.
On the technical front, the research explores the complexities inherent in validating AI tools for clinical use. Unlike traditional medical devices, AI models often involve adaptive algorithms that change with new data inputs. Regulatory bodies must thus develop protocols for ongoing assessment beyond initial approval. This includes establishing metrics for clinical effectiveness, safety monitoring, and mechanisms to swiftly address adverse events or performance degradation. Robust post-market surveillance integrated with national pharmacovigilance systems is crucial.
The study also discusses capacity-building as a critical enabler for effective AI regulation. Regulatory authorities require technical expertise not only in health policy but also in data science, machine learning, and cybersecurity. Mugalula highlights gaps in human resources and calls for investment in specialized training programs and collaboration with academic institutions. Capacity-building extends to healthcare providers who need skills to interpret AI-generated insights critically and apply them responsibly within clinical workflows.
Financing emerges as another significant aspect. Implementing a comprehensive AI regulatory framework involves considerable costs related to institutional setup, technology acquisition, training, and ongoing oversight. The paper proposes innovative funding mechanisms including public-private partnerships, donor support aligned with national priorities, and integration of AI regulation expenses within broader health system budgets. A clear articulation of return on investment based on improved health outcomes and system efficiencies can help justify these expenditures.
Importantly, Mugalula’s work also stresses transparency and accountability throughout the AI lifecycle. Transparent communication with the public regarding AI use, capabilities, and limitations fosters informed consent and social acceptance. Mechanisms for accountability, including grievance redressal and legal recourse for harms caused by AI systems, must be embedded in regulatory policies. These safeguards protect patients while reinforcing public confidence necessary for broad adoption.
The study acknowledges potential barriers including resistance from stakeholders wary of increased regulation or uncertain about AI benefits. It underscores the need for sustained advocacy and pilot projects demonstrating AI’s positive impact when properly governed. Moreover, regulatory frameworks should be designed to minimize bureaucratic hurdles that could delay beneficial technologies from reaching those in need.
Looking to the future, Mugalula envisions Uganda as a potential regional leader in responsible AI healthcare innovation if regulatory foresight and collaborative governance are prioritized. Harnessing AI’s power to accelerate progress towards UHC requires balancing technological ambitions with ethical imperatives and pragmatic policy design. This research serves as a roadmap for policymakers worldwide grappling with similar challenges in the digital health domain.
In conclusion, Uganda stands at a critical juncture as it seeks to integrate cutting-edge AI into its healthcare ecosystem. Mugalula’s thorough exploration of regulatory pathways provides vital guidance on crafting a framework that maximizes AI’s benefits while safeguarding public health and equity. For countries with similar socioeconomic contexts, this work offers a replicable model emphasizing principled innovation and inclusive governance. As AI continues to reshape medicine globally, addressing regulatory complexities in developing contexts will be pivotal to ensuring technology serves all populations equitably.
Subject of Research: Regulation of artificial intelligence in Uganda’s healthcare and its role in delivering universal health coverage.
Article Title: Regulation of artificial intelligence in Uganda’s healthcare: exploring an appropriate regulatory approach and framework to deliver universal health coverage.
Article References:
Mugalula, K.G. Regulation of artificial intelligence in Uganda’s healthcare: exploring an appropriate regulatory approach and framework to deliver universal health coverage. Int J Equity Health 24, 158 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02513-3
Image Credits: AI Generated
