Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39932773›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2025

The Effects of Presenting AI Uncertainty Information on Pharmacists' Trust in Automated Pill Recognition Technology: Exploratory Mixed Subjects Study.

Jin Yong Kim, Vincent D Marshall, Brigid Rowell, Qiyuan Chen, Yifan Zheng, John D Lee, Raed Al Kontar, Corey Lester, Xi Jessie Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Jin Yong KimIndustrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-1626-7204
Vincent D MarshallCollege of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2594-7407
Brigid RowellCollege of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8469-899X
Qiyuan ChenIndustrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0009-0006-4112-014X
Yifan ZhengCollege of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6997-735X
John D LeeIndustrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9808-2160
Raed Al KontarIndustrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4546-324X
Corey LesterCollege of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8774-793X
Xi Jessie YangIndustrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6071-0387

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

backgroundDispensing errors significantly contribute to adverse drug events, resulting in substantial health care costs and patient harm. Automated pill verification technologies have been developed to aid pharmacists with medication dispensing. However, pharmacists' trust in such automated technologies remains unexplored.

objectiveThis study aims to investigate pharmacists' trust in automated pill verification technology designed to support medication dispensing.

methodsThirty licensed pharmacists in the United States performed a web-based simulated pill verification task to determine whether an image of a filled medication bottle matched a known reference image. Participants completed a block of 100 verification trials without any help, and another block of 100 trials with the help of an imperfect artificial intelligence (AI) aid recommending acceptance or rejection of a filled medication bottle. The experiment used a mixed subjects design. The between-subjects factor was the AI aid type, with or without an AI uncertainty plot. The within-subjects factor was the four potential verification outcomes: (1) the AI rejects the incorrect drug, (2) the AI rejects the correct drug, (3) the AI approves the incorrect drug, and (4) the AI approves the correct drug. Participants' trust in the AI system was measured. Mixed model (generalized linear models) tests were conducted with 2-tailed t tests to compare the means between the 2 AI aid types for each verification outcome.

resultsParticipants had an average trust propensity score of 72 (SD 18.08) out of 100, indicating a positive attitude toward trusting automated technologies. The introduction of an uncertainty plot to the AI aid significantly enhanced pharmacists' end trust (t

conclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this study is the first attempt to examine pharmacists' trust in automated pill verification technology. Our findings reveal that pharmacists have a favorable disposition toward trusting automation. Moreover, providing uncertainty information about the AI's recommendation significantly boosts pharmacists' trust in AI aid, highlighting the importance of developing transparent AI systems within health care.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMedication ErrorsPharmacistsTrustAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUncertaintyUnited Statesartificial intelligenceartificial intelligence aidautomationhuman-computer interactionmedication errorspharmacistspill verificationsafetyuncertainty communicationvisualization

Identifiers

PMID39932773
PMCPMC11862782

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.