Health kiosks, installed in public spaces, are becoming one of the most visible and controversial faces of digital health. Spanning from shopping malls and airports to university campuses and rural settlements, these stations offer a wide range of services, from simple screenings like blood pressure measurement to remote physician consultations and AI-powered preliminary assessments. This proliferation, which has accelerated in the last two years, is not just a technological innovation; it also raises deeper questions, such as access to healthcare, inequalities, and the transformation of labor.
Today, a person approaching a health kiosk often begins with self-measurement: basic indicators such as blood pressure, pulse, oxygen saturation, weight, and body mass index are recorded within a few minutes. Some advanced models also include electrocardiography (ECG) or risk scores. These measurements are often pre-screened by AI-powered software, providing the user with understandable feedback, such as “Normal,” “follow-up recommended,” or “consult a specialist.” Here, artificial intelligence is positioned not as a replacement for the physician, but as a layer that accelerates and guides the process.
The second approach is telehealth kiosks, called “clinic-in-a-box.” In these booths, users can have a video consultation with a clinician remotely. Thanks to sensors and cameras inside the booth, the physician can see the measurements in real time. OnMed kiosks placed in airports in the US are among the best-known examples of this model. The aim is to provide fast, low-threshold health contact, especially in areas with dense and transient populations.
In Germany, however, the approach is somewhat different. Here, the “Gesundheitskiosk” concept is more focused on multilingual counseling, preventive health information, and referral to the health system. In federal and state-level pilots, the goal is to facilitate access to the system, especially for immigrants and groups with low health literacy. Guidance and bridging functions are prioritized over clinical diagnosis.
Projections for the next three to five years show that these kiosks will become even more “standardized.” Basic vital signs will become almost a default feature; AI will focus on background functions such as triage, risk flagging, appointment scheduling, and documentation. Regulation is expected to be the decisive factor. In the European Union, the intersection of medical device legislation and AI regulations will force manufacturers into a stricter framework regarding quality, traceability, and accountability. This will increase the tension between “rapid deployment” and “secure integration.”
The critical question here is: Are health kiosks truly a solution that increases accessibility, or a new layer of inequality? Will groups with high digital literacy and less concern for privacy benefit more easily from these systems, while the elderly or those hesitant about technology will be left out? Who will be held responsible if there is an error in AI-powered triage? Is the kiosk a support that closes the physician shortage, or a tool that makes healthcare labor even more fragmented and precarious?
The issue is not just about “a new device”; The public nature of healthcare, points of contact for migrants within the system, data privacy, and how academic knowledge is transferred to the field are all relevant issues. Health kiosks, when designed correctly, can be a low-threshold and inclusive entry point; when poorly designed, they can become a symbol of silently deepening inequalities. Therefore, the issue hinges not so much on “will it happen?” but rather on “how will it happen and for whom?”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-025-00738-5
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12872-023-03701-1
