Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38145475›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Designing Human-Centered AI to Prevent Medication Dispensing Errors: Focus Group Study With Pharmacists.

Yifan Zheng, Brigid Rowell, Qiyuan Chen, Jin Yong Kim, Raed Al Kontar, X Jessie Yang, Corey A Lester

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. AI alignment is all your need for future drug discovery.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Pharmacists' propensity to trust automated technologies: A demographic analysis.Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA
    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

7 authors.

Yifan ZhengDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6997-735X
Brigid RowellDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8469-899X
Qiyuan ChenDepartment of Industrial and Operations Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4112-014X
Jin Yong KimDepartment of Industrial and Operations Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1626-7204
Raed Al KontarDepartment of Industrial and Operations Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4546-324X
X Jessie YangDepartment of Industrial and Operations Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6071-0387
Corey A LesterDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8774-793X

Funding

Preventing medication dispensing errors in pharmacy practice with interpretable machine intelligenceR01LM013624 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI AL KONTAR, RAED, LESTER, COREY A · 2021 to 2024
$1.2M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013624
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication errors, including dispensing errors, represent a substantial worldwide health risk with significant implications in terms of morbidity, mortality, and financial costs. Although pharmacists use methods like barcode scanning and double-checking for dispensing verification, these measures exhibit limitations. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in pharmacy verification emerges as a potential solution, offering precision, rapid data analysis, and the ability to recognize medications through computer vision. For AI to be embraced, it must be designed with the end user in mind, fostering trust, clear communication, and seamless collaboration between AI and pharmacists.

objectiveThis study aimed to gather pharmacists' feedback in a focus group setting to help inform the initial design of the user interface and iterative designs of the AI prototype.

methodsA multidisciplinary research team engaged pharmacists in a 3-stage process to develop a human-centered AI system for medication dispensing verification. To design the AI model, we used a Bayesian neural network that predicts the dispensed pills' National Drug Code (NDC). Discussion scripts regarding how to design the system and feedback in focus groups were collected through audio recordings and professionally transcribed, followed by a content analysis guided by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety and Human-Machine Teaming theoretical frameworks.

resultsA total of 8 pharmacists participated in 3 rounds of focus groups to identify current challenges in medication dispensing verification, brainstorm solutions, and provide feedback on our AI prototype. Participants considered several teaming scenarios, generally favoring a hybrid teaming model where the AI assists in the verification process and a pharmacist intervenes based on medication risk level and the AI's confidence level. Pharmacists highlighted the need for improving the interpretability of AI systems, such as adding stepwise checkmarks, probability scores, and details about drugs the AI model frequently confuses with the target drug. Pharmacists emphasized the need for simplicity and accessibility. They favored displaying only essential information to prevent overwhelming users with excessive data. Specific design features, such as juxtaposing pill images with their packaging for quick comparisons, were requested. Pharmacists preferred accept, reject, or unsure options. The final prototype interface included (1) checkmarks to compare pill characteristics between the AI-predicted NDC and the prescription's expected NDC, (2) a histogram showing predicted probabilities for the AI-identified NDC, (3) an image of an AI-provided "confused" pill, and (4) an NDC match status (ie, match, unmatched, or unsure).

conclusionsIn partnership with pharmacists, we developed a human-centered AI prototype designed to enhance AI interpretability and foster trust. This initiative emphasized human-machine collaboration and positioned AI as an augmentative tool rather than a replacement. This study highlights the process of designing a human-centered AI for dispensing verification, emphasizing its interpretability, confidence visualization, and collaborative human-machine teaming styles.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecommunicationdesigndesign methodsdevelopmentengineeringfocus groupshuman-computer interactionmedication errorsmorbiditymortalitypatient safetysafetySEIPSSystems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safetytooluser-centereduser-centered design methodsvisualization

Identifiers

PMID38145475
PMCPMC10775023

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.