ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
AI-Augmented Co-Design in Healthcare: Log-Based Markers of Teamwork Behaviors and Collective Intelligence Outcomes.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Article
- Construction and prototype effect evaluation of a multi-agent collaborative system for operating room nursing.Frontiers in digital health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Co-design in healthcare settings requires teams to utilize each other's knowledge effectively, but practical guidance and simple methods for observing collaboration are often lacking. We tested whether a lightweight AI assistant that guides the process-and automatically logs who speaks, when, and how work progresses-can make teamwork easier to manage and easier to track. Six four-person teams completed the same five-phase session. The assistant nudged timing, turn-taking, and artifact hand-offs; all interactions were recorded in a shared workspace. We assessed usability and acceptance, expert-rated product quality (technical performance), perceived team performance, and self-rated technical contribution, and we summarized basic log signals of participation and pacing (e.g., turn-taking balance, average turn duration). Analyses were descriptive. All teams finished the protocol with complete logs. Outcomes were favorable (expert ratings averaged 4.18/5; perceived performance 6.14/7; self-rated contribution 4.08/5). Teams with more balanced participation and clearer pacing tended to report better performance, whereas simply having more turns did not. A process-guiding AI assistant can quantify teamwork behaviors as markers of collective intelligence and support reflection in everyday clinical co-design; future work will examine the generalizability of these findings across different sites.
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.