ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences2022
Analysis of the thinking process of pharmacists in response to changes in the dispensing environment using the eye-tracking method.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences, 2022. 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.
- Right-brain utilization in pharmacists' dispensing processes: an eye-tracking analysis of efficiency and safety using error-induction models.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2025Article
- Eye-tracking-based analysis of pharmacists' thought processes in the dispensing work: research related to the efficiency in dispensing based on right-brain thinking.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2024Article
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
backgroundPharmacists must understand the mechanisms by which dispensing errors occur and take appropriate preventive measures. In this study, the gaze movements of pharmacists were analyzed using an eye-tracking method, to elucidate the thinking process of pharmacists when identifying target drugs and avoiding dispensing errors.
methodsWe prepared verification slides and projected them on a large screen. Each slide comprised a drug rack area and a prescription area; the former consisted of a grid-like layout with 55 drugs and the latter displayed dispensing information (drug name, drug usage, location number, and total amount). Twelve pharmacists participated in the study, and three single-type drugs and six double-type drugs were used as target drugs. We analyzed the pharmacists' method of identifying the target drugs, the mechanisms by which errors occurred, and the usefulness of drug photographs using the error-induction (-) /photo (+), error-induction (+) / (+), and error-induction (+) /photo (-) models.
resultsVisual invasion by non-target drugs was found to have an effect on the subsequent occurrence of dispensing errors. In addition, when using error-induction models, the rate of dispensing error was 2.8 and 11.1% for the photo (+) and photo (-) models, respectively. Furthermore, based on the analysis of eight pharmacists who dispensed drugs without errors, it was clear that additional confirmation of "drug name" was required to accurately identify the target drug in the photo (+) model; additionally, that of "location number" was required to pinpoint directly the position of target drug in the photo (-) model.
conclusionsBy analyzing the gaze movements of pharmacists using the eye-tracking method, we clarified pharmacists' thinking process which was required to avoid dispensing errors in a complicated environment and proved the usefulness of drug photographs in terms of both reducing the complexity of the dispensing process and the risk of dispensing errors. Effective measures to prevent dispensing errors include ensuring non-adjacent placement of double-type drugs and utilization of their image information.
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.