The Effects of Presenting AI Uncertainty Information on Pharmacists' Trust in Automated Pill Recognition Technology: Exploratory Mixed Subjects Study.

IF 3 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JMIR Human Factors Pub Date : 2025-02-11 DOI:10.2196/60273
Jin Yong Kim, Vincent D Marshall, Brigid Rowell, Qiyuan Chen, Yifan Zheng, John D Lee, Raed Al Kontar, Corey Lester, Xi Jessie Yang
{"title":"The Effects of Presenting AI Uncertainty Information on Pharmacists' Trust in Automated Pill Recognition Technology: Exploratory Mixed Subjects Study.","authors":"Jin Yong Kim, Vincent D Marshall, Brigid Rowell, Qiyuan Chen, Yifan Zheng, John D Lee, Raed Al Kontar, Corey Lester, Xi Jessie Yang","doi":"10.2196/60273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dispensing errors significantly contribute to adverse drug events, resulting in substantial health care costs and patient harm. Automated pill verification technologies have been developed to aid pharmacists with medication dispensing. However, pharmacists' trust in such automated technologies remains unexplored.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to investigate pharmacists' trust in automated pill verification technology designed to support medication dispensing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty licensed pharmacists in the United States performed a web-based simulated pill verification task to determine whether an image of a filled medication bottle matched a known reference image. Participants completed a block of 100 verification trials without any help, and another block of 100 trials with the help of an imperfect artificial intelligence (AI) aid recommending acceptance or rejection of a filled medication bottle. The experiment used a mixed subjects design. The between-subjects factor was the AI aid type, with or without an AI uncertainty plot. The within-subjects factor was the four potential verification outcomes: (1) the AI rejects the incorrect drug, (2) the AI rejects the correct drug, (3) the AI approves the incorrect drug, and (4) the AI approves the correct drug. Participants' trust in the AI system was measured. Mixed model (generalized linear models) tests were conducted with 2-tailed t tests to compare the means between the 2 AI aid types for each verification outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants had an average trust propensity score of 72 (SD 18.08) out of 100, indicating a positive attitude toward trusting automated technologies. The introduction of an uncertainty plot to the AI aid significantly enhanced pharmacists' end trust (t<sub>28</sub>=-1.854; P=.04). Trust dynamics were influenced by AI aid type and verification outcome. Specifically, pharmacists using the AI aid with the uncertainty plot had a significantly larger trust increment when the AI approved the correct drug (t<sub>78.98</sub>=3.93; P<.001) and a significantly larger trust decrement when the AI approved the incorrect drug (t<sub>2939.72</sub>=-4.78; P<.001). Intriguingly, the absence of the uncertainty plot led to an increase in trust when the AI correctly rejected an incorrect drug, whereas the presence of the plot resulted in a decrease in trust under the same circumstances (t<sub>509.77</sub>=-3.96; P<.001). A pronounced \"negativity bias\" was observed, where the degree of trust reduction when the AI made an error exceeded the trust gain when the AI made a correct decision (z=-11.30; P<.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first attempt to examine pharmacists' trust in automated pill verification technology. Our findings reveal that pharmacists have a favorable disposition toward trusting automation. Moreover, providing uncertainty information about the AI's recommendation significantly boosts pharmacists' trust in AI aid, highlighting the importance of developing transparent AI systems within health care.</p>","PeriodicalId":36351,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Human Factors","volume":"12 ","pages":"e60273"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11862782/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/60273","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Dispensing errors significantly contribute to adverse drug events, resulting in substantial health care costs and patient harm. Automated pill verification technologies have been developed to aid pharmacists with medication dispensing. However, pharmacists' trust in such automated technologies remains unexplored.

Objective: This study aims to investigate pharmacists' trust in automated pill verification technology designed to support medication dispensing.

Methods: Thirty licensed pharmacists in the United States performed a web-based simulated pill verification task to determine whether an image of a filled medication bottle matched a known reference image. Participants completed a block of 100 verification trials without any help, and another block of 100 trials with the help of an imperfect artificial intelligence (AI) aid recommending acceptance or rejection of a filled medication bottle. The experiment used a mixed subjects design. The between-subjects factor was the AI aid type, with or without an AI uncertainty plot. The within-subjects factor was the four potential verification outcomes: (1) the AI rejects the incorrect drug, (2) the AI rejects the correct drug, (3) the AI approves the incorrect drug, and (4) the AI approves the correct drug. Participants' trust in the AI system was measured. Mixed model (generalized linear models) tests were conducted with 2-tailed t tests to compare the means between the 2 AI aid types for each verification outcome.

Results: Participants had an average trust propensity score of 72 (SD 18.08) out of 100, indicating a positive attitude toward trusting automated technologies. The introduction of an uncertainty plot to the AI aid significantly enhanced pharmacists' end trust (t28=-1.854; P=.04). Trust dynamics were influenced by AI aid type and verification outcome. Specifically, pharmacists using the AI aid with the uncertainty plot had a significantly larger trust increment when the AI approved the correct drug (t78.98=3.93; P<.001) and a significantly larger trust decrement when the AI approved the incorrect drug (t2939.72=-4.78; P<.001). Intriguingly, the absence of the uncertainty plot led to an increase in trust when the AI correctly rejected an incorrect drug, whereas the presence of the plot resulted in a decrease in trust under the same circumstances (t509.77=-3.96; P<.001). A pronounced "negativity bias" was observed, where the degree of trust reduction when the AI made an error exceeded the trust gain when the AI made a correct decision (z=-11.30; P<.001).

Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first attempt to examine pharmacists' trust in automated pill verification technology. Our findings reveal that pharmacists have a favorable disposition toward trusting automation. Moreover, providing uncertainty information about the AI's recommendation significantly boosts pharmacists' trust in AI aid, highlighting the importance of developing transparent AI systems within health care.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工智能不确定性信息对药剂师在药物自动识别技术中信任度的影响:探索性混合受试者研究。
背景:配药错误是导致药物不良事件的重要原因,造成大量医疗成本和对患者的伤害。目前已开发出自动药片验证技术来帮助药剂师配药。然而,药剂师对此类自动技术的信任度仍有待探索:本研究旨在调查药剂师对旨在支持配药的自动药片验证技术的信任度:美国的 30 名执业药剂师执行了一项基于网络的模拟药片验证任务,以确定灌装药瓶的图像是否与已知参考图像相匹配。参与者在没有任何帮助的情况下完成了 100 次验证试验,并在不完善的人工智能(AI)辅助工具的帮助下完成了另外 100 次试验,该辅助工具会建议接受或拒绝接受已灌装的药瓶。实验采用混合被试设计。被试间因素是人工智能辅助类型,有无人工智能不确定性图。主体内因素是四种潜在的验证结果:(1) 人工智能拒绝不正确的药物;(2) 人工智能拒绝正确的药物;(3) 人工智能批准不正确的药物;(4) 人工智能批准正确的药物。对参与者对人工智能系统的信任度进行了测量。通过混合模型(广义线性模型)检验和双尾 t 检验来比较两种人工智能辅助工具对每种验证结果的影响:参与者的平均信任倾向得分为 72 分(标准差为 18.08)(满分 100 分),表明他们对信任自动化技术持积极态度。在人工智能辅助工具中引入不确定性图谱能显著提高药剂师的最终信任度(t28=-1.854;P=.04)。信任动态受人工智能辅助工具类型和验证结果的影响。具体而言,当人工智能批准了正确的药物时,使用带有不确定性图谱的人工智能辅助工具的药剂师的信任增量明显更大(t78.98=3.93;P2939.72=-4.78;P509.77=-3.96;PC结论:据我们所知,本研究是首次尝试考察药剂师对自动药片验证技术的信任度。我们的研究结果表明,药剂师对自动化技术的信任度较高。此外,提供有关人工智能建议的不确定性信息大大提高了药剂师对人工智能辅助工具的信任度,这凸显了在医疗保健领域开发透明的人工智能系统的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Human Factors
JMIR Human Factors Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
123
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Interactive, Personalized Patient Decision Aid for COVID-19 Vaccination in Canada: User-Centered Design Approach. Comparing Images of Depression in Mass Media and AI-Generated Pictures: Mixed Methods Study. Real-World Performance of a New Online Eye Symptom Triage Tool (Eye+Dot) in an Emergency Eye Clinic: Mixed Methods Evaluation Study. Health Information Technology-Related Loss of Central Surveillance Data in a Heart Intensive Care Unit: Multi-Framework Case Report. Participant Engagement With a Digital Behavioral Health App for Chronic Pain: Descriptive Secondary Analysis of a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1