ArticleHuman factors2023
Crew Autonomy During Simulated Medical Event Management on Long Duration Space Exploration Missions.
Article in Human factors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk of Permanent Corneal Injury in Microgravity: Spaceflight-Associated Hazards, Challenges to Vision Restoration, and Role of Biotechnology in Long-Term Planetary Missions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- 3D Bioprinting in Microgravity: Opportunities, Challenges, and Possible Applications in Space.Advanced healthcare materials · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur primary aim was to investigate crew performance during medical emergencies with and without ground-support from a flight surgeon located at mission control.
backgroundThere are gaps in knowledge regarding the potential for unanticipated in-flight medical events to affect crew health and capacity, and potentially compromise mission success. Additionally, ground support may be impaired or periodically absent during long duration missions.
methodWe reviewed video recordings of 16 three-person flight crews each managing four unique medical events in a fully immersive spacecraft simulator. Crews were randomized to two conditions: with and without telemedical flight surgeon (FS) support. We assessed differences in technical performance, behavioral skills, and cognitive load between groups.
resultsCrews with FS support performed better clinically, were rated higher on technical skills, and completed more clinical tasks from the medical checklists than crews without FS support. Crews with FS support also had better behavioral/non-technical skills (information exchange) and reported significantly lower cognitive demand during the medical event scenarios on the NASA-TLX scale, particularly in mental demand and temporal demand. There was no significant difference between groups in time to treat or in objective measures of cognitive demand derived from heart rate variability and electroencephalography.
conclusionMedical checklists are necessary but not sufficient to support high levels of autonomous crew performance in the absence of real-time flight surgeon support. APPLICATION: Potential applications of this research include developing ground-based and in-flight training countermeasures; informing policy regarding autonomous spaceflight, and design of autonomous clinical decision support systems.
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.