ArticleApplied ergonomics2023
Managing multiple perspectives in the collaborative design process of a team health information technology.
Article in Applied ergonomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human-Centered design requirements for clinical decision support in cardiac surgery perfusion.Human factors in healthcare · 2026Article
- Retrospective analysis of the human-centered design process used to develop a clinical decision support in the emergency department: PE Dx Study Part 2.Human factors in healthcare · 2023Article
- Work system barriers and facilitators of a team health information technology.Applied ergonomics · 2023Article
- Human Factors Engineering for the Pediatric Hospitalist.Hospital pediatrics · 2023Article
- Emergency Medicine Perspectives: The Importance of Bystanders and Their Impact on On-Site Resuscitation Measures and Immediate Outcomes of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluating the Usability of an Emergency Department After Visit Summary: Staged Heuristic Evaluation.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We need to design technologies that support the work of health care teams; designing such solutions should integrate different clinical roles. However, we know little about the actual collaboration that occurs in the design process for a team-based care solution. This study examines how multiple perspectives were managed in the design of a team health IT solution aimed at supporting clinician information needs during pediatric trauma care transitions. We focused our analysis on four co-design sessions that involved multiple clinicians caring for pediatric trauma patients. We analyzed design session transcripts using content analysis and process coding guided by Détienne's (2006) co-design framework. We expanded upon Détienne (2006) three collaborative activities to identify specific themes and processes of collaboration between care team members engaged in the design process. The themes and processes describe how team members collaborated in a team health IT design process that resulted in a highly usable technology.
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.