Artificial intelligence (AI) can transform health care practices with its increasing ability to translate the uncertainty and complexity in data into actionable—though imperfect—clinical decisions or suggestions. In the evolving relationship between humans and AI, trust is the one mechanism that shapes clinicians’ use and adoption of AI. Trust is a psychological mechanism to deal with the uncertainty between what is known and unknown. Several research studies have highlighted the need for improving AI-based systems and enhancing their capabilities to help clinicians. However, assessing the magnitude and impact of human trust on AI technology demands substantial attention. Will a clinician trust an AI-based system? What are the factors that influence human trust in AI? Can trust in AI be optimized to improve decision-making processes? In this paper, we focus on clinicians as the primary users of AI systems in health care and present factors shaping trust between clinicians and AI. We highlight critical challenges related to trust that should be considered during the development of any AI system for clinical use.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) provides opportunities to identify the health risks of patients and thus influence patient safety outcomes. Objective: The purpose of this systematic literature review was to identify and analyze quantitative studies utilizing or integrating AI to address and report clinical-level patient safety outcomes. Methods: We restricted our search to the PubMed, PubMed Central, and Web of Science databases to retrieve research articles published in English between January 2009 and August 2019. We focused on quantitative studies that reported positive, negative, or intermediate changes in patient safety outcomes using AI apps, specifically those based on machine-learning algorithms and natural language processing. Quantitative studies reporting only AI performance but not its influence on patient safety outcomes were excluded from further review. Results: We identified 53 eligible studies, which were summarized concerning their patient safety subcategories, the most frequently used AI, and reported performance metrics. Recognized safety subcategories were clinical alarms (n=9; mainly based on decision tree models), clinical reports (n=21; based on support vector machine models), and drug safety (n=23; mainly based on decision tree models). Analysis of these 53 studies also identified two essential findings: (1) the lack of a standardized benchmark and (2) heterogeneity in AI reporting. Conclusions: This systematic review indicates that AI-enabled decision support systems, when implemented correctly, can aid in enhancing patient safety by improving error detection, patient stratification, and drug management. Future work is still needed for robust validation of these systems in prospective and real-world clinical environments to understand how well AI can predict safety outcomes in health care settings.

Background: Although most digital twin (DT) applications for health care have emerged in precision medicine, DTs can potentially support the overall health care process. DTs (twinned systems, processes, and products) can be used to optimize flows, improve performance, improve health outcomes, and improve the experiences of patients, doctors, and other stakeholders with minimal risk.Objective: This paper aims to review applications of DT systems, products, and processes as well as analyze the potential of these applications for improving health care management and the challenges associated with this emerging technology.Methods: We performed a rapid review of the literature and reported available studies on DTs and their applications in health care management. We searched 5 databases for studies published between January 2002 and January 2022 and included peer-reviewed studies written in English. We excluded studies reporting DT usage to support health care practice (organ transplant, precision medicine, etc). Studies were analyzed based on their contribution toward DT technology to improve user experience in health care from human factors and systems engineering perspectives, accounting for the type of impact (product, process, or performance/system level). Challenges related to the adoption of DTs were also summarized.Results: The DT-related studies aimed at managing health care systems have been growing over time from 0 studies in 2002 to 17 in 2022, with 7 published in 2021 (N=17 studies). The findings reported on applications categorized by DT type (system: n=8; process: n=5; product: n=4) and their contributions or functions. We identified 4 main functions of DTs in health care management including safety management (n=3), information management (n=2), health management and well-being promotion (n=3), and operational control (n=9). DTs used in health care systems management have the potential to avoid unintended or unexpected harm to people during the provision of health care processes. They also can help identify crisis-related threats to a system and control the impacts. In addition, DTs ensure privacy, security, and real-time information access to all stakeholders. Furthermore, they are beneficial in empowering self-care abilities by enabling health management practices and providing high system efficiency levels by ensuring that health care facilities run smoothly and offer high-quality care to every patient.Conclusions: The use of DTs for health care systems management is an emerging topic. This can be seen in the limited literature supporting this technology. However, DTs are increasingly being used to ensure patient safety and well-being in an organized system. Thus, further studies aiming to address the challenges of health care systems challenges and improve their performance should investigate the potential of DT technology. In addition, such technologies should embed human factors and ergonomics principles to ensure better design and more successful impact on patient and doctor experiences.

Background: Despite advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) to develop prediction and classification models, little research has been devoted to real-world translations with a user-centered design approach. AI development studies in the health care context have often ignored two critical factors of ecological validity and human cognition, creating challenges at the interface with clinicians and the clinical environment. Objective: The aim of this literature review was to investigate the contributions made by major human factors communities in health care AI applications. This review also discusses emerging research gaps, and provides future research directions to facilitate a safer and user-centered integration of AI into the clinical workflow. Methods: We performed an extensive mapping review to capture all relevant articles published within the last 10 years in the major human factors journals and conference proceedings listed in the “Human Factors and Ergonomics” category of the Scopus Master List. In each published volume, we searched for studies reporting qualitative or quantitative findings in the context of AI in health care. Studies are discussed based on the key principles such as evaluating workload, usability, trust in technology, perception, and user-centered design. Results: Forty-eight articles were included in the final review. Most of the studies emphasized user perception, the usability of AI-based devices or technologies, cognitive workload, and user’s trust in AI. The review revealed a nascent but growing body of literature focusing on augmenting health care AI; however, little effort has been made to ensure ecological validity with user-centered design approaches. Moreover, few studies (n=5 against clinical/baseline standards, n=5 against clinicians) compared their AI models against a standard measure. Conclusions: Human factors researchers should actively be part of efforts in AI design and implementation, as well as dynamic assessments of AI systems’ effects on interaction, workflow, and patient outcomes. An AI system is part of a greater sociotechnical system. Investigators with human factors and ergonomics expertise are essential when defining the dynamic interaction of AI within each element, process, and result of the work system.

Using video-based observation research methods in primary care health encounters to evaluate complex interactions