Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37651166›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2023

Graphical User Interface Development for a Hospital-Based Predictive Risk Tool: Protocol for a Co-Design Study.

Nicholas Marlow, Marion Eckert, Greg Sharplin, Ian Gwilt, Kristin Carson-Chahhoud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Nicholas MarlowUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4210-0520
Marion EckertUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7232-6208
Greg SharplinUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6294-1146
Ian GwiltUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3759-3423
Kristin Carson-ChahhoudUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9966-9289

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis co-design research method details the iterative process developed to identify health professional recommendations for the graphical user interface (GUI) of an artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled risk prediction tool. Driving the decision to include a co-design process is the belief that choices regarding the aesthetic and functionality of an intervention are best made by its intended users and that engaging these users in its design will promote the tool's adoption and use.

objectiveThe aim of this research is to identify health professional design and uptake recommendations for the GUI of an AI-enabled predictive risk tool.

methodsWe will hold 3 research phases, each consisting of 2 workshops with health professionals, between mid-2023 and mid-2024. A total of 6 health professionals will be sought per workshop, resulting in a total enrollment of 36 health professionals at the conclusion of the research. A total of 7 workshop activities have been scheduled across the 3 workshops; these include context of use, notifiers, format, AI survey-Likert, prototype, AI survey-written, and testing. The first 6 of these activities will be repeated in each workshop to enable the iterative development and refinement of GUI. The last activity (testing) will be performed in the final workshop to examine health professionals' thoughts on the final GUI iteration. Qualitative and quantitative results data will be produced from tasks in each research activity. Qualitative data will be examined through inductive thematic analysis or deductive thematic analysis in accordance with the Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework; visual data will be examined in accordance with "framework of interactivity;" and quantitative data will be examined using descriptive statistics.

resultsProject registration with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry has been requested (#384098). Finalized design recommendations are expected in early to mid-2024, with a results manuscript to be submitted in mid-2024. This research method has human research ethics approval from the South Australian Department of Health and Wellbeing (#2022/HRE00131) as well as from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of South Australia (application ID#204143).

conclusionsUnderstanding whether an intervention is needed in a particular situation is just the start; designing an intervention so that it is used within that situation is paramount. This co-design process engages end users to create a GUI that includes the aesthetic and functional details they need in a manner that aligns with their existing work practices. Indeed, interventions that fail to do this may be disliked, and at worst, they may be dangerous. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/47717.

Indexed as

co-designhealth information technologyhealth professionaluser-centered designuser interface

Identifiers

PMID37651166
PMCPMC10502603

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.