Bias in AI applications for audiology: cultural, linguistic and ethical considerations in Africa

Purpose To critically examine the sources and implications of bias in artificial intelligence (AI) applications for audiology in Africa, focussing on cultural, linguistic, technical and ethical dimensions, and their implications for equitable hearing healthcare delivery. Design/methodology/approach A systematic narrative review of peer-reviewed literature published (2000–2025) was conducted. Empirical studies, systematic and scoping reviews and conceptual papers on AI in audiology and related healthcare technologies were included. Data were extracted and synthesised thematically to identify patterns of bias relevant to African contexts. Findings Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. Five interrelated sources of bias were identified: (1) data and representational bias due to underrepresentation of African populations, (2) algorithmic and model development bias linked to design and validation limitations, (3) linguistic bias in speech-processing technologies, particularly Automated Speech Recognition, (4) deployment and contextual bias associated with infrastructure and health system constraints in low- and middle-income settings and (5) ethical, governance and regulatory challenges affecting accountability and data sovereignty. Collectively, these biases contribute to inequitable diagnostic accuracy and access to AI-enabled care. Originality/value This review advances the concept of “digital ear harm” to describe iatrogenic risks associated with biased AI in audiology and foregrounds Ubuntu as a relational ethical framework for mitigation. Unlike previous reviews that predominantly conceptualise AI bias as a technical or algorithmic challenge, this review demonstrates how data representation, linguistic diversity, cultural context and governance interact to shape healthcare equity in African audiology. It offers a contextually grounded synthesis and strategic directions for equitable, culturally responsive AI development in African audiology.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance
Published
2026-09-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhcqa-05-2026-0128
Primary Topic
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Bias in AI applications for audiology: cultural, linguistic and ethical considerations in Africa

Katijah Khoza‐Shangase
International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
article

Bias in AI applications for audiology: cultural, linguistic and ethical considerations in Africa

Katijah Khoza‐Shangase
article en

Abstract

Purpose To critically examine the sources and implications of bias in artificial intelligence (AI) applications for audiology in Africa, focussing on cultural, linguistic, technical and ethical dimensions, and their implications for equitable hearing healthcare delivery. Design/methodology/approach A systematic narrative review of peer-reviewed literature published (2000–2025) was conducted. Empirical studies, systematic and scoping reviews and conceptual papers on AI in audiology and related healthcare technologies were included. Data were extracted and synthesised thematically to identify patterns of bias relevant to African contexts. Findings Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. Five interrelated sources of bias were identified: (1) data and representational bias due to underrepresentation of African populations, (2) algorithmic and model development bias linked to design and validation limitations, (3) linguistic bias in speech-processing technologies, particularly Automated Speech Recognition, (4) deployment and contextual bias associated with infrastructure and health system constraints in low- and middle-income settings and (5) ethical, governance and regulatory challenges affecting accountability and data sovereignty. Collectively, these biases contribute to inequitable diagnostic accuracy and access to AI-enabled care. Originality/value This review advances the concept of “digital ear harm” to describe iatrogenic risks associated with biased AI in audiology and foregrounds Ubuntu as a relational ethical framework for mitigation. Unlike previous reviews that predominantly conceptualise AI bias as a technical or algorithmic challenge, this review demonstrates how data representation, linguistic diversity, cultural context and governance interact to shape healthcare equity in African audiology. It offers a contextually grounded synthesis and strategic directions for equitable, culturally responsive AI development in African audiology.

International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance
University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Bias in AI applications for audiology: cultural, linguistic and ethical considerations in Africa — Katijah Khoza‐Shangase · International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS