Human Factors and Organizational Issues in Health Informatics: Review of Recent Developments and Advances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this paper we focus on a review of key articles published in the past two years (2022 and 2023) in the areas of human factors and organizational issues in health informatics. METHODS: We reviewed manuscripts that were published in primary human factors, human factors engineering and health informatics journals. This involved conducting a series of searches using PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for articles related to human factors in healthcare published in 2022 and 2023. RESULTS: The range of applications that have been designed and analyzed using human factors approaches has been rapidly expanding, including increased number of articles around topics such as the following: AI in healthcare, patient-centered design, usability of mHealth, organizational issues, and work around ensuring system safety. This includes study of applications designed for use by both patients and health providers applying both qualitative and quantitative approaches to user requirements, user-centered system design and human factors analysis and evaluation. CONCLUSION: The importance of human factors is becoming recognized as new forms of health technology appear. A multi-level perspective on human factors, that considers human factors at multiple levels, from the individual user to the complex social and organizational context, was described to consider the range and diversity of human factors approaches in healthcare. Such an approach will be needed to drive the design and evaluation of useful and usable healthcare information technologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".