Exploring the Use of Persuasive System Design Principles to Enhance Medication Incident Reporting and Learning Systems: Scoping Reviews and Persuasive Design Assessment (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND Medication incidents (MIs) causing harm to patients have far-reaching consequences for patients, pharmacists, public health, business practice, and governance policy. Medication Incident Reporting and Learning Systems (MIRLS) have been implemented to mitigate such incidents and promote continuous quality improvement in community pharmacies in Canada. They aim to collect and analyze MIs for the implementation of incident preventive strategies to increase safety in community pharmacy practice. However, this goal remains inhibited owing to the persistent barriers that pharmacies face when using these systems. OBJECTIVE This study aims to investigate the harms caused by medication incidents and technological barriers to reporting and identify opportunities to incorporate persuasive design strategies in MIRLS to motivate reporting. METHODS We conducted 2 scoping reviews to provide insights on the relationship between medication errors and patient harm and the information system–based barriers militating against reporting. Seven databases were searched in each scoping review, including PubMed, Public Health Database, ProQuest, Scopus, ACM Library, Global Health, and Google Scholar. Next, we analyzed one of the most widely used MIRLS in Canada using the Persuasive System Design (PSD) taxonomy—a framework for analyzing, designing, and evaluating persuasive systems. This framework applies behavioral theories from social psychology in the design of technology-based systems to motivate behavior change. Independent assessors familiar with MIRLS reported the degree of persuasion built into the system using the 4 categories of PSD strategies: primary task, dialogue, social, and credibility support. RESULTS Overall, 17 articles were included in the first scoping review, and 1 article was included in the second scoping review. In the first review, significant or serious harm was the most frequent harm (11/17, 65%), followed by death or fatal harm (7/17, 41%). In the second review, the authors found that iterative design could improve the usability of an MIRLS; however, data security and validation of reports remained an issue to be addressed. Regarding the MIRLS that we assessed, participants considered most of the primary task, dialogue, and credibility support strategies in the PSD taxonomy as important and useful; however, they were not comfortable with some of the social strategies such as cooperation. We found that the assessed system supported a number of persuasive strategies from the PSD taxonomy; however, we identified additional strategies such as tunneling, simulation, suggestion, praise, reward, reminder, authority, and verifiability that could further enhance the perceived persuasiveness and value of the system. CONCLUSIONS MIRLS, equipped with persuasive features, can become powerful motivational tools to promote safer medication practices in community pharmacies. They have the potential to highlight the value of MI reporting and increase the readiness of pharmacists to report incidents. The proposed persuasive design guidelines can help system developers and community pharmacy managers realize more effective MIRLS.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,079 | 0,224 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,026 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».