ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Clinician Trust and Human Factors in AI-Enabled Clinical Decision Support in Acute Care: Mixed Methods 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: AI has the potential to enhance clinical decision-making in high-acuity settings such as intensive care units (ICUs) and emergency departments (EDs). However, despite promising performance, many AI-driven clinical decision support systems (AI-CDSSs) face poor adoption due to issues of trust, workflow disruption, and alert fatigue. Understanding the human factors that shape clinician acceptance is critical to guide safe and effective implementation of AI-CDSS in acute care. Theoretical frameworks, including the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 model and the technology acceptance model (TAM), suggest that successful adoption requires addressing sociotechnical interactions among clinician trust, system design, organizational readiness, and task complexity, yet few empirical studies have applied these frameworks to AI-CDSSs in acute care settings. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate emergency medicine and critical care clinicians' perceptions of AI-CDSSs and to identify key factors influencing adoption, including trust, design preferences, and workflow integration. Methods: A SEIPS 2.0-informed mixed methods study evaluated ICU and ED clinicians from Emory Healthcare on perceptions of AI in clinical practice. An expert-reviewed survey (N=57) assessed clinician perceptions, trust, and implementation preferences. Semistructured interviews (n=11) included A/B testing of AI-CDSSs and clinical sepsis scenarios to explore decision-making in context. Transcripts were thematically analyzed using the Braun and Clarke framework in ATLAS.ti (version 26, ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development). Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively. This study assessed clinician perceptions using mock alerts and hypothetical scenarios rather than real-world AI-CDSS deployment. Results: Trust in AI varied significantly by patient acuity (Cochran Q=30.40, Conclusions: Adoption of AI-CDSSs in critical care is not solely a technical issue but a human-factors challenge centered on trust, transparency, and workflow compatibility. These findings support future testing of a phased implementation approach-beginning with lower-acuity applications where clinician trust is highest, then gradually extending to higher-acuity scenarios with enhanced transparency and override mechanisms. This graduated strategy addresses the critical interdependencies among people (trust), tools (design), organizations (training), and tasks (clinical complexity) identified in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42826375What 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.