ReviewPilot and feasibility studies2022
The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research - a systematic review.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a mobile application for wound severity detection and modern dressing selection.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026Article
- The Cognitive Transaction: Toward a Human Factors Research Agenda for AI in Anesthesia and Perioperative Care.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Use of Operative Video Technology in Surgical Education: A Systematic Review.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Review
- "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 · 2026Article
- Designing for implementation: a cognitive task analysis of intimate partner violence screening in hospital trauma care in Alberta, Canada.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Clinician perspectives and recommendations regarding design of clinical prediction models for deteriorating patients in acute care.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Sociotechnical feasibility of natural language processing-driven tools in clinical trial eligibility prescreening for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Defining competencies in robotic thyroidectomy: development of a model assessing an expert operator's intraoperative performance skills and cognitive strategies.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- A qualitative analysis of algorithm-based decision support usability testing for symptom management across the trajectory of cancer care: one size does not fit all.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- A novel and practical care process framework to inform model of care development.Healthcare management forum · 2023Article
- Applying cognitive task analysis to health services research.Health services research · 2023Article
- The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research - a systematic review.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.