ArticleApplied clinical informatics2023
User-Centered Design to Reduce Inappropriate Blood Transfusion Orders.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating PRISM with User-centered Design (PRISM+UCD): Designing clinical decision support for safe opioid prescribing.Research square · 2025Article
- User-Centered Design in Real-Time: Utilization of an Insider Position to Inform Design and Adoption.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Pitfalls of reasoning in hospital-based transfusion medicine.Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2024Review
- Avoiding Unintended Consequences of Pediatric Blood Order Set Updates through In Situ Usability Testing.Applied clinical informatics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo improve blood transfusion practices, we applied user-centered design (UCD) to evaluate potential changes to blood transfusion orders.
objectivesThe aim of the study is to build effective transfusion orders with different designs to improve guideline adherence.
methodsWe developed three different versions of transfusion orders that varied how information was presented to clinicians ordering blood transfusions. We engaged 14 clinicians (residents, advanced practice providers [APPs], and attending physicians) from different specialties. We used the think aloud technique and rapid qualitative analysis to generate themes to incorporate into our modified orders.
resultsMost end-users who participated in the semi-structured interviews preferred the interruptive alert design plus behavioral nudges (
conclusionThe user experience uncovered through the think aloud approach produced a clear and rich understanding of potentially confounding factors in the initial design of different intervention versions. Input from end-users guided the creation of all three designs so each was addressing human factors with parity, which ensured that the results of our study reflected differences in interruptive properties of the alerts and not differences in design.
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.