ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Principles for the conduct of human factors/ergonomics in healthcare: a scoping study of the published evidence.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preventing Retained Surgical Items Through the Development of a Safer Telescopic Sponge-Counting System.AORN journal · 2026Article
- Embedding human factors and systems thinking in patient safety education: the Contributing factors, Analysis, and Recommendation Education (CARE) Tool.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a need for guidance to support human factors/ergonomics (HFE) practitioners to conceive and design HFE interventions that live up to the fundamental principles underpinning the discipline of HFE. The principles are that HFE has a systems focus, is design driven and focuses on both performance and well-being outcomes.
objectivesThe objectives of this scoping review are to: identify studies that meet these principles in order to discover how commonly HFE studies meet the principles for the practice of HFE; the scope and characteristics of studies that meet the principles; and the learning that can be gleaned from these studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The principles were operationalised into four criteria that were used to select studies: (1) The intervention acts on more than one aspect or element of the system; (2) a context-relevant needs assessment or systems analysis phase is undertaken to design the intervention; (3) the intervention has an active element that is designed to enhance safety, quality, efficiency, effectiveness or well-being and (4) the intervention is evaluated. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: The review considered all studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 2010 and July 2024 in which an HFE or related intervention is presented and evaluated. Electronic searches were conducted across five databases plus Google Scholar. CHARTING
methodsData extraction was done by consensus using extraction forms and following two stages: (1) data extraction and (2) data interpretation.
resultsA total of 13 intervention studies met the inclusion criteria, suggesting that adherence to core HFE principles is rare. All included studies self-identified as HFE intervention studies. All interventions had a clearly defined scope and most targeted at least four system elements, that is, person, tools, technology, task, process, organisation, environment. The 'people' element was the one most commonly targeted. A wide range of organisational level and patient outcomes were measured, but no employee safety or well-being outcomes were measured in the included studies. In all cases, the intervention team included healthcare providers working with HFE/systems engineering/improvement experts, who often led the project.
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.