Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36315238›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2022

Clinicians' Perceptions of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Blood Utilization Calculator: Qualitative Exploratory Study.

Avishek Choudhury, Onur Asan, Joshua E Medow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Avishek ChoudhuryIndustrial and Management Systems Engineering, Benjamin M Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5342-0709
Onur AsanSystems Engineering, School of Systems and Enterprises, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9239-3723
Joshua E MedowNeurocritical Care, Neurosurgery, Pathology, and Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9293-2005

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccording to the US Food and Drug Administration Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, health care systems have been experiencing blood transfusion overuse. To minimize the overuse of blood product transfusions, a proprietary artificial intelligence (AI)-based blood utilization calculator (BUC) was developed and integrated into a US hospital's electronic health record. Despite the promising performance of the BUC, this technology remains underused in the clinical setting.

objectiveThis study aims to explore how clinicians perceived this AI-based decision support system and, consequently, understand the factors hindering BUC use.

methodsWe interviewed 10 clinicians (BUC users) until the data saturation point was reached. The interviews were conducted over a web-based platform and were recorded. The audiovisual recordings were then anonymously transcribed verbatim. We used an inductive-deductive thematic analysis to analyze the transcripts, which involved applying predetermined themes to the data (deductive) and consecutively identifying new themes as they emerged in the data (inductive).

resultsWe identified the following two themes: (1) workload and usability and (2) clinical decision-making. Clinicians acknowledged the ease of use and usefulness of the BUC for the general inpatient population. The clinicians also found the BUC to be useful in making decisions related to blood transfusion. However, some clinicians found the technology to be confusing due to inconsistent automation across different blood work processes.

conclusionsThis study highlights that analytical efficacy alone does not ensure technology use or acceptance. The overall system's design, user perception, and users' knowledge of the technology are equally important and necessary (limitations, functionality, purpose, and scope). Therefore, the effective integration of AI-based decision support systems, such as the BUC, mandates multidisciplinary engagement, ensuring the adequate initial and recurrent training of AI users while maintaining high analytical efficacy and validity. As a final takeaway, the design of AI systems that are made to perform specific tasks must be self-explanatory, so that the users can easily understand how and when to use the technology. Using any technology on a population for whom it was not initially designed will hinder user perception and the technology's use.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceblood transfusioncomplicationsdecision-makingdecision supporthuman factorsperceptionpreventionrisksafetysupporttechnology acceptancetransfusion overloadusability

Identifiers

PMID36315238
PMCPMC9664323

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.