MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411978218 · doi:10.1080/17517575.2025.2524847

Human factors in digital healthcare systems: a critical literature review

2025· article· en· W4411978218 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnterprise Information Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicErgonomics and Human Factors
Canadian institutionsAlgoma UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHealth careHealthcare systemComputer scienceBusinessKnowledge managementMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human factors (HFs) in any digital healthcare systems (DHS) refer to the limitations and errors of human operators or users in the healthcare delivery and patient engagement. This review focuses on two situations (1) users are part of the system, (2) users are the client of the system. This paper aims to identify knowledge gaps in HFs in DHS and propose future research directions to close these gaps. The review discovered five key dimensions of HFs in DHS and nine relevant topic areas. From these, three major knowledge gaps and six future research directions are proposed to further advance the subject area of HFs in DHSs.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.247 · 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