ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026
Human factors methods for designing safe health information technology: what do the experts think?
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impacts of a Statewide Prescription Drug Monitoring Program-Healthcare Practitioner Perspectives.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 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
objectiveHuman Factors (HF) methods have potential to ensure the design of health information technology (HIT) is safe and usable, but limited research has examined what HF methods have been applied or could be applied to HIT. This study aimed to identify key HF and safety analysis methods used and/or recommended by HF experts working in healthcare or non-healthcare industries that may be suitable for supporting the design, redesign and configuration of HIT. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe ran semi-structured interviews with 21 HF experts working across health and non-health industries to identify key HF and safety analysis methods used and/or recommended for supporting the design, redesign and configuration of HITs.
resultsForty-seven HF methods across 11 method categories were reported by HF experts. Non-health participants reported a wider range of Human Error Identification and Risk Assessment Methods and were the only cohort to report workload assessment methods. Both health and non-health participants described their approaches for selecting methods and recommended that methods be applied flexibly. DISCUSSION: This study highlights the need to uplift HF capability by teaching methods to system designers, particularly where access to HF experts is limited and undertaking efforts to learn from HF practice in safety-critical industries outside of healthcare.
conclusionFurther work is required to integrate HF methods and approaches, especially those focused on safety, into the work of HIT designers.
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.