You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Automation bias in electronic prescribing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12911-017-0425-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Lyell, Farah Magrabi, Magdalena Z. Raban, L.G. Pont, Melissa T. Baysari, Richard O. Day, Enrico Coiera |
| Abstract |
Clinical decision support (CDS) in e-prescribing can improve safety by alerting potential errors, but introduces new sources of risk. Automation bias (AB) occurs when users over-rely on CDS, reducing vigilance in information seeking and processing. Evidence of AB has been found in other clinical tasks, but has not yet been tested with e-prescribing. This study tests for the presence of AB in e-prescribing and the impact of task complexity and interruptions on AB. One hundred and twenty students in the final two years of a medical degree prescribed medicines for nine clinical scenarios using a simulated e-prescribing system. Quality of CDS (correct, incorrect and no CDS) and task complexity (low, low + interruption and high) were varied between conditions. Omission errors (failure to detect prescribing errors) and commission errors (acceptance of false positive alerts) were measured. Compared to scenarios with no CDS, correct CDS reduced omission errors by 38.3% (p < .0001, n = 120), 46.6% (p < .0001, n = 70), and 39.2% (p < .0001, n = 120) for low, low + interrupt and high complexity scenarios respectively. Incorrect CDS increased omission errors by 33.3% (p < .0001, n = 120), 24.5% (p < .009, n = 82), and 26.7% (p < .0001, n = 120). Participants made commission errors, 65.8% (p < .0001, n = 120), 53.5% (p < .0001, n = 82), and 51.7% (p < .0001, n = 120). Task complexity and interruptions had no impact on AB. This study found evidence of AB omission and commission errors in e-prescribing. Verification of CDS alerts is key to avoiding AB errors. However, interventions focused on this have had limited success to date. Clinicians should remain vigilant to the risks of CDS failures and verify CDS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 7 | 18% |
| United States | 5 | 13% |
| India | 3 | 8% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 5% |
| Philippines | 1 | 3% |
| Argentina | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 53% |
| Scientists | 10 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 135 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
| Researcher | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 39 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 17% |
| Psychology | 10 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 6% |
| Engineering | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 27 | 20% |
| Unknown | 50 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2022.
All research outputs
#988,919
of 25,295,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#32
of 2,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,076
of 314,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#2
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,295,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,641 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.