Human factors methods in the design of digital decision support systems for population health: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background While Human Factors (HF) methods have been applied to the design of decision support systems (DSS) to aid clinical decision-making, the role of HF to improve decision-support for population health outcomes is less understood. We sought to comprehensively understand how HF methods have been used in designing digital population health DSS. Materials and methods We searched English documents published in health sciences and engineering databases (Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, Comendex, Inspec, IEEE Xplore) between January 1990 and September 2023 describing the development, validation or application of HF principles to decision support tools in population health. Results We identified 21,581 unique records and included 153 studies for data extraction and synthesis. We included research articles that had a target end-user in population health and that used HF. HF methods were applied throughout the design lifecycle. Users were engaged early in the design lifecycle in the needs assessment and requirements gathering phase and design and prototyping phase with qualitative methods such as interviews. In later stages in the lifecycle, during user testing and evaluation, and post deployment evaluation, quantitative methods were more frequently used. However, only three studies used an experimental framework or conducted A/B testing. Conclusions While HF have been applied in a variety of contexts in the design of data-driven DSSs for population health, few have used Human Factors to its full potential. We offer recommendations for how HF can be leveraged throughout the design lifecycle. Most crucially, system designers should engage with users early on and throughout the design process. Our findings can support stakeholders to further empower public health systems.
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 | 0.092 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".