ArticleJMIR human factors2022
Clinicians' Perceptions of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Blood Utilization Calculator: Qualitative Exploratory Study.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Task-Technology Fit of Artificial Intelligence-based clinical decision support systems: a review of qualitative studies.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Trust in Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems Among Health Care Workers: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Experience of Health Care Professionals Using Digital Tools in the Hospital: Qualitative Systematic Review.JMIR human factors · 2023Pooled it
- Integrating Gait Analysis and AI Into Knee Osteoarthritis Care: Protocol for a 3-Phase Participatory Qualitative Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in blood donor management: A narrative review.Vox sanguinis · 2026Review
- Navigating the doctor-patient-AI relationship - a mixed-methods study of physician attitudes toward artificial intelligence in primary care.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Usefulness and Ease of Use of a Next-Generation-Connected Drug Delivery Device for Growth Hormone Therapy: Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals' Perceptions.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Intensive Care Unit Physicians' Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support Tools: Preimplementation Survey Study.JMIR human factors · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.