ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Effects of AI Assistance Timing on Pharmacists' Trust in Automated Pill Recognition Technology: Within-Participants Experimental Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Image-based pill verification systems demonstrate high model accuracy. However, their effectiveness in pharmacy practice depends on how pharmacists interact with the AI output. The timing of AI advice is one design factor that influences these interactions, yet its impact on pharmacists' moment-to-moment trust dynamics during medication verification requires further investigation. Objective: This study aims to investigate how the timing and conditionality of AI assistance shape pharmacists' trust dynamics during medication verification. Methods: Between April and December 2024, 50 licensed pharmacists completed a browser-based simulated medication dispensing task with 2 AI types: ex-ante advice (AI advice given concurrently with clinical information) and ex-post advice (AI advice given after an initial diagnosis). Ex-post advice was further divided into the involved ex-post and the not-involved ex-post conditions. The experiment used a within-participants design with varying AI types and AI recognition patterns (right fill-correct recognition, right fill-incorrect recognition, wrong fill-correct recognition, and wrong fill-incorrect recognition). The primary outcomes were trust adjustment magnitude and trust adjustment, which were analyzed using mixed-effects linear regression models. Results: Trust adjustment magnitude differed significantly across AI assistance conditions. The involved ex-post condition led to the highest magnitude of trust adjustment, followed by ex-ante advice (mean difference 9.65, 95% CI 8.55-10.75; Conclusions: Both the timing and conditionality of AI assistance influenced pharmacists' trust dynamics. Disagreement-based AI interventions (involved ex-post) that incorrectly challenged pharmacists led to a substantial trust decrement, whereas the not-involved AI intervention resulted in more stable trust fluctuations. These findings highlight the importance of designing AI systems that align intervention strategies with user expertise and task demands to foster appropriate trust in safety-critical workflows.
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.