ArticleTherapeutic drug monitoring2025
Exploring Health Care Professionals' Engagement With a Precision Dosing Calculator and Supporting Clinical Information: Insights From an Eye-Tracking and Usability Study.
Article in Therapeutic drug monitoring, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPharmacokinetic-based dosing calculators for individualized drug dosing remain underutilized in clinical practice, often due to poor usability and a lack of user-centered design. Understanding how health care professionals interact with these tools can inform design strategies and enhance usability.
methodsHealth care professionals wore eye-tracking glasses while using a codesigned vancomycin dosing calculator with supporting clinical information to complete example clinical scenarios. Eye-tracking data were collected for 23 predefined areas of interest, and fixation sequences were analyzed. A Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire was administered to assess the tool's perceived usability.
resultsEleven pharmacists and three doctors participated in the study. The highest average dwell times were recorded for the pharmacokinetic plot, dosage regimen selection, dosing history, drug concentrations, and the area under the concentration-time curve and dose visualization area. Participants generally viewed patient demographic information first and pharmacokinetic and dosage regimen information last. Considerable heterogeneity was observed among participants' fixation sequences, with frequent eye movements between key areas, particularly between the pharmacokinetic plot and dosage regimen selection, and between dosing history and drug concentrations. Participants expressed a preference for these elements to be positioned close together.
conclusionsUnderstanding how health care professionals interact with decision support systems is essential for developing user-friendly tools that align with clinical workflows. Eye-tracking data provided valuable insights into user engagement patterns with the dosing calculator and clinical information interface. These insights will guide future design strategies to address usability barriers that limit the utilization of dosing calculators in clinical practice and promote the implementation of individualized drug dosing.
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.