Conducting Eye‐Tracking Research in Acute Care: A Scoping Review of Ethical, Feasibility and Acceptability Challenges
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIM: To identify and synthesise the ethical, feasibility and acceptability challenges associated with implementing eye-tracking research with clinicians in acute care settings and to explore strategies to address these concerns. DESIGN: Scoping review using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. DATA SOURCES: Six databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, APA PsycInfo and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global) were searched for peer-reviewed articles. Reference lists of included studies were also hand-searched. METHODS: Eligible studies involved clinicians using or interacting with eye-tracking devices in acute care environments and addressed at least one ethical, feasibility, or acceptability consideration. Data were extracted and thematically analysed. Knowledge users, including clinicians, ethicists and a patient partner, were engaged during protocol development and findings synthesis. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies published from 2010 to 2024 were included. Seven challenges were identified: obtaining ethical approval, managing consent, privacy and confidentiality concerns, collecting data in unpredictable environments, interference with care, participant comfort and data loss or unreliability. Knowledge users highlighted the importance of early institutional engagement, clear protocols, continuous consent and context-sensitive ethical reflection. CONCLUSIONS: Eye-tracking offers valuable insights into clinician behaviour and cognition, but its implementation in acute care raises complex ethical and methodological issues. Responsible use requires anticipatory planning, stakeholder engagement and flexible yet rigorous protocols. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: By informing the development of ethically sound study protocols and consent practices, this work contributes to safer, more transparent and patient-centred research that respects participant autonomy and protects clinical workflows. REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/jn4yx). REPORTING METHOD: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Page et al., 2021) and its Extension for Scoping Reviews (Tricco et al., 2018). PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A patient partner was involved in protocol development, interpretation of findings and development of study recommendations. Their contributions included participating in advisory groups and providing feedback alongside clinicians and ethicists during focus groups. This input helped ensure the research addressed patient-relevant priorities and informed the development of ethically responsible practices for conducting eye-tracking research in clinical care settings.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».