Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42814962›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2026

From Prototype to Practice: Mixed Methods Study of Human-Centered Design and Usability Evaluation of Augmented Reality for Complex Oncology Surgical Workflows.

Maria Matsangidou, Mikolaj R Kowal, Jakob Yianni, Maria Krini, Samir Pathak, Katie Gordon, Malcolm A Luker, Deborah D Stocken, David Jayne, Constantinos S Pattichis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Maria MatsangidouCYENS Centre of Excellence, Lellou Demetriades, Plateia Dimarchou 1, Nicosia, Lefkosia, 1016, Cyprus.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3804-5565
Mikolaj R KowalLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5628-4880
Jakob YianniInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5551-2574
Maria KriniThe Cyprus Association of Cancer Patients and Friends, Nicosia, Cyprus.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8122-963X
Samir PathakLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0535-1470
Katie GordonLeeds Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1483-0657
Malcolm A LukerHoloCare Ltd, Esher, Surrey, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-6974-0209
Deborah D StockenLeeds Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8031-1738
David JayneLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8725-3283
Constantinos S PattichisCYENS Centre of Excellence, Lellou Demetriades, Plateia Dimarchou 1, Nicosia, Lefkosia, 1016, Cyprus.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1271-8151

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) oncology involves complex surgical planning and multidisciplinary decision-making that present significant cognitive, spatial, and communicative challenges. While augmented reality (AR) technologies are emerging as valuable tools in surgical planning, most existing systems are developed in a technologically deterministic manner, often without consideration of patients' lived experiences or the collaborative needs of multidisciplinary clinical teams. This limits their integration into complex workflows and their potential for meaningful clinical impact. Objective: This study aimed to co-design and evaluate a human-centered AR system that supports spatial understanding, emotional sensitivity, and collaborative decision-making in HPB surgical oncology. Methods: This mixed methods human-centered design study was conducted between February 2024 and September 2025 and comprised 2 phases. In Phase 1, convenience sampling was used to recruit 14 oncology health care professionals (surgeons, oncologists, and psycho-oncology specialists) and 10 patients with cancer from multidisciplinary oncology care settings to participate in co-design workshops and semistructured interviews exploring the cognitive, communicative, emotional, and workflow requirements for an AR system supporting HPB surgical oncology. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and informed iterative prototype development. In Phase 2, the resulting AR prototype was evaluated through usability testing with 10 hepatobiliary clinicians using simulated multidisciplinary tumor board planning scenarios. Usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS), supplemented by observational data and qualitative feedback. Results: The co-design process identified intersecting spatial, cognitive, emotional, and communicative challenges in HPB surgical oncology. These findings informed the iterative development of an AR prototype that functioned as a shared cognitive and communicative workspace. The system enabled collaborative manipulation of 3D anatomical models, emotionally calibrated visualizations, and seamless integration with existing planning workflows. The prototype achieved a mean SUS score of 67.25 (SD 7.95), indicating acceptable usability. In simulated multidisciplinary tumor board scenarios, clinicians reported improved spatial understanding, reduced cognitive load, and enhanced interdisciplinary communication. Patients with cancer participating in the co-design phase valued the ability to engage with their own anatomy in an emotionally manageable way and reported that interactive visualization improved their understanding and sense of agency. Overall, the findings suggest that AR systems designed with human-centered methods can function not only as visualization tools but also as boundary objects that support communication and distributed cognition in complex cancer care settings. Conclusions: A human-centered co-design process can guide the development of AR systems that extend beyond technical novelty to become emotionally attuned, cognitively supportive, and workflow-compatible tools in surgical oncology. By foregrounding the needs of both patients and professionals, AR can function as a boundary object that facilitates collaborative decision-making, empathetic communication, and multidisciplinary coordination in complex oncology care. This study provides actionable design recommendations for developing AR technologies that are meaningfully integrated into complex clinical contexts.

Indexed as

Augmented RealitySurgical OncologyWorkflowAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Researchaugmented realityco-designhuman-centered designmultidisciplinary carepatient-clinician communicationsurgical oncology

Identifiers

PMID42814962
PMCPMC13626403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.