MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human-Centered Design for Health Information Technology

2011· book-chapter· en· W4235627169 on OpenAlexaff
Charlotte Tang, Sheelagh Carpendale

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in healthcare information systems and administration book series · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResearch designHealth information technologyHealth careField (mathematics)Human healthUser-centered designQualitative researchData collectionEngineering ethicsManagement scienceData scienceComputer scienceKnowledge managementMedicineEngineeringSociologyHuman–computer interactionPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter presents issues that may arise in human-centered research in health care environments. The authors first discuss why human-centered approach is increasingly employed to study and to design health care technology. They then present some practical concerns that may arise when conducting qualitative research in medical settings, from research design, to data collection and data analysis, and to technology design. Many of these concerns were also experienced in their own human-centered field studies conducted in the last few years. The authors conclude the chapter by illustrating some of these issues using their own research case study that investigated nurses’ information flow in a hospital ward.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.006

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in healthcare information systems and administration book seriesSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207