Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35260195›Full record

ReviewPilot and feasibility studies2022

The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research - a systematic review.

Lizzie Swaby, Peiyao Shu, Daniel Hind, Katie Sutherland

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Use of Operative Video Technology in Surgical Education: A Systematic Review.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Review
  4. "It's Either Have Surgery or Die": How Patients Perceive the Choice to Undergo High-Risk Abdominal Surgery for Cancer.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lizzie SwabyScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. e.a.swaby@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9443-7681
Peiyao ShuChina National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) Research Institute of Safety & Environment Technology, PetroChina Innovation Base, Shahe Town, Changping District, Beijing, China.
Daniel HindScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Katie SutherlandScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
University of Sheffield · GBChina National Petroleum Corporation (China) · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAt times, clinical case complexity and different types of uncertainty present challenges to less experienced clinicians or the naive application of clinical guidelines where this may not be appropriate. Cognitive task analysis (CTA) methods are used to elicit, document and transfer tacit knowledge about how experts make decisions.

methodsWe conducted a methodological review to describe the use of CTA methods in understanding expert clinical decision-making. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to 2019 for primary research studies which described the use of CTA methods to understand how qualified clinicians made clinical decisions in real-world clinical settings.

resultsWe included 81 articles (80 unique studies) from 13 countries, published from 1993 to 2019, most commonly from surgical and critical care settings. The most common aims were to understand expert decision-making in particular clinical scenarios, using expert decision-making in the development of training programmes, understanding whether decision support tools were warranted and understanding procedural variability and error identification or reduction. Critical decision method (CDM) and CTA interviews were most frequently used, with hierarchical task analysis, task knowledge structures, think-aloud protocols and other methods less commonly used. Studies used interviews, observation, think-aloud exercises, surveys, focus groups and a range of more CTA-specific methodologies such as the systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. Researchers used CTA methods to investigate routine/typical (n = 64), challenging (n = 13) or more uncommon, rare events and anomalies (n = 3).

conclusionsIn conclusion, the elicitation of expert tacit knowledge using CTA has seen increasing use in clinical specialties working under challenging time pressures, complexity and uncertainty. CTA methods have great potential in the development, refinement, modification or adaptation of complex interventions, clinical protocols and practice guidelines. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID CRD42019128418 .

Indexed as

Clinical decision-makingCognitive task analysisMedical decision-making

Identifiers

PMID35260195
PMCPMC8903544
OpenAlexW4220990676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.