MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911454999 · doi:10.2196/12055

Development of a Clinical Interface for a Novel Newborn Resuscitation Device: Human Factors Approach to Understanding Cognitive User Requirements

2019· article· en· W2911454999 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsCognitionHuman–computer interactionInterface (matter)User interfaceComputer scienceResuscitationMedicinePsychologyNeuroscienceOperating systemEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A novel medical device has been developed to address an unmet need of standardizing and facilitating heart rate recording during neonatal resuscitation. In a time-critical emergency resuscitation, where failure can mean death of an infant, it is vital that clinicians are provided with information in a timely, precise, and clear manner to capacitate appropriate decision making. This new technology provides a hands-free, wireless heart rate monitoring solution that easily fits the clinical pathway and procedure for neonatal resuscitation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand the requirements of the interface design for a new device by using a human factors approach. This approach combined a traditional user-centered design approach with an applied cognitive task analysis to understand the tasks involved, the cognitive requirements, and the potential for error during a neonatal resuscitation scenario. METHODS: Fourteen clinical staff were involved in producing the final design requirements. Two pediatric doctors supported the development of a visual representation of the activities associated with neonatal resuscitation. This design was used to develop a scenario-based workshop. Two workshops were carried out in parallel and involved three pediatric doctors, three neonatal nurses, two advance neonatal practitioners, and four midwives. Both groups came together at the end to reflect on the findings from the separate sessions. RESULTS: The outputs of this study have provided a comprehensive description of information requirements during neonatal resuscitation and enabled product developers to understand the preferred requirements of the user interface design for the device. The study raised three key areas for the designers to consider, which had not previously been highlighted: (1) interface layout and information priority, as heart rate should be central and occupy two-thirds of the screen; (2) size and portability, to enable positioning of the product local to the baby's head and allow visibility from all angles; and (3) auditory feedback, to support visual information on heart rate rhythm and reliability of the trace with an early alert for intervention while avoiding parental distress. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the application of human factors and the applied cognitive task analysis method, which identified previously unidentified user requirements. This methodology provides a useful approach to aid development of the clinical interface for medical devices.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.430
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.067 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it