Assessing Patient Trust in Automation in Health Care Systems: Within-Subjects Experimental Study.

IF 2.6 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JMIR Human Factors Pub Date : 2024-08-06 DOI:10.2196/48584
Matthew Nare, Katherina Jurewicz
{"title":"Assessing Patient Trust in Automation in Health Care Systems: Within-Subjects Experimental Study.","authors":"Matthew Nare, Katherina Jurewicz","doi":"10.2196/48584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health care technology has the ability to change patient outcomes for the betterment when designed appropriately. Automation is becoming smarter and is increasingly being integrated into health care work systems.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study focuses on investigating trust between patients and an automated cardiac risk assessment tool (CRAT) in a simulated emergency department setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A within-subjects experimental study was performed to investigate differences in automation modes for the CRAT: (1) no automation, (2) automation only, and (3) semiautomation. Participants were asked to enter their simulated symptoms for each scenario into the CRAT as instructed by the experimenter, and they would automatically be classified as high, medium, or low risk depending on the symptoms entered. Participants were asked to provide their trust ratings for each combination of risk classification and automation mode on a scale of 1 to 10 (1=absolutely no trust and 10=complete trust).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results from this study indicate that the participants significantly trusted the semiautomation condition more compared to the automation-only condition (P=.002), and they trusted the no automation condition significantly more than the automation-only condition (P=.03). Additionally, participants significantly trusted the CRAT more in the high-severity scenario compared to the medium-severity scenario (P=.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings from this study emphasize the importance of the human component of automation when designing automated technology in health care systems. Automation and artificially intelligent systems are becoming more prevalent in health care systems, and this work emphasizes the need to consider the human element when designing automation into care delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":36351,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Human Factors","volume":"11 ","pages":"e48584"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11336498/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/48584","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Health care technology has the ability to change patient outcomes for the betterment when designed appropriately. Automation is becoming smarter and is increasingly being integrated into health care work systems.

Objective: This study focuses on investigating trust between patients and an automated cardiac risk assessment tool (CRAT) in a simulated emergency department setting.

Methods: A within-subjects experimental study was performed to investigate differences in automation modes for the CRAT: (1) no automation, (2) automation only, and (3) semiautomation. Participants were asked to enter their simulated symptoms for each scenario into the CRAT as instructed by the experimenter, and they would automatically be classified as high, medium, or low risk depending on the symptoms entered. Participants were asked to provide their trust ratings for each combination of risk classification and automation mode on a scale of 1 to 10 (1=absolutely no trust and 10=complete trust).

Results: Results from this study indicate that the participants significantly trusted the semiautomation condition more compared to the automation-only condition (P=.002), and they trusted the no automation condition significantly more than the automation-only condition (P=.03). Additionally, participants significantly trusted the CRAT more in the high-severity scenario compared to the medium-severity scenario (P=.004).

Conclusions: The findings from this study emphasize the importance of the human component of automation when designing automated technology in health care systems. Automation and artificially intelligent systems are becoming more prevalent in health care systems, and this work emphasizes the need to consider the human element when designing automation into care delivery.

评估患者对医疗系统自动化的信任:主体内实验研究
背景:如果设计得当,医疗保健技术有能力改善患者的治疗效果。自动化正变得越来越智能,并越来越多地融入到医疗保健工作系统中:本研究的重点是在模拟急诊室环境中调查患者与自动心脏风险评估工具(CRAT)之间的信任度:方法:进行了一项受试者内实验研究,以调查 CRAT 自动化模式的差异:(1) 无自动化;(2) 仅自动化;(3) 半自动化。参与者需要按照实验人员的指示,在 CRAT 中输入每个场景下的模拟症状,并根据输入的症状自动将其分为高风险、中风险和低风险。参与者需要对每种风险分类和自动化模式的组合进行信任度评分,评分标准为 1 到 10 分(1 分=绝对不信任,10 分=完全信任):研究结果表明,参与者对半自动化条件的信任度明显高于纯自动化条件(P=.002),对无自动化条件的信任度明显高于纯自动化条件(P=.03)。此外,与中度严重性情景相比,参与者在高度严重性情景下对 CRAT 的信任度明显更高(P=.004):本研究的结论强调了在医疗保健系统中设计自动化技术时,自动化中人的因素的重要性。自动化和人工智能系统在医疗保健系统中正变得越来越普遍,这项研究强调了在设计医疗保健服务自动化时考虑人的因素的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JMIR Human Factors
JMIR Human Factors Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
123
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信