The DOI matches its Crossref record.
User-Centered Methods in Explainable AI Development for Hospital Clinical Decision Support: A Scoping Review
Open accessAbstract
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) offers promising advancements in enhancing transparency and usability of AI-based Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) in healthcare settings. These tools aim to improve clinical outcomes by assisting with diagnosis, treatment planning, and risk prediction. However, integrating XAI into clinical workflows requires effective involvement of healthcare professionals to ensure that the explanations provided by these tools are comprehensible, relevant, and actionable. This scoping review aimed to investigate how (potential) end users were involved in the design and development of XAI-based CDSS for hospitals. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science identified 11 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Interviews and focus groups, mainly with physicians, were common, while some included nurses and developers. Four of the 11 studies engaged users across multiple stages, from pre-design to prototype testing, and specifically tested different explanation techniques with end-users. A quality assessment of papers found some studies had unclear recruitment strategies and insufficiently detailed analyses. Future work should engage end-users early in the design process, include health professionals with diverse experiences and backgrounds, and test explanation techniques to ensure appropriate methods that align with cognitive processes are chosen.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Studies involving clinician interviews, prototyping, and usability testing demonstrate that well-designed interfaces significantly improve comprehension and perceived utility.
“Studies involving clinician interviews, prototyping, and usability testing demonstrate that well-designed interfaces significantly improve comprehension and perceived utility425.”
From Artificial intelligence-driven multi-omics approaches in Alzheimer's disease: Progress, challenges, and future directions (2025) · cites this paper as [425]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ren, F., Wei, J., Chen, Q., Hu, M., Yu, L., Mi, J., Zhou, X., Qin, D., Wu, J., & Wu, A. (2025) · Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B · doi:10.1016/j.apsb.2025.07.030 · Cited by 97
Trujillano, J., Serviá, L., Badía, M., Serrano, J. C. E., Bordeje-Laguna, M. L., Lorencio, C., Alonso, C. V., Lasierra, J. L. F., Zurbano, I. M. D. L., Portugal-Rodríguez, E., et al. (2025) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu17111903 · Cited by 18
Njei, B. M., & Kanmounye, U. S. (2026) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/90456 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Dort, B. A., Engelsma, T., Medlock, S., & Dusseljee-Peute, L.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, eHealth Living & Learning Lab Amsterdam, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Venue
- Studies in Health Technology and Informatics
- Publisher
- IOS Press
- Published
- 2025-05-12
- Volume
- 326
- Pages
- 17-21
- ISSN
- 0926-9630 (ISSN-L)
- 1879-8365
- OpenAlex
- W4410324998
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 6.29
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Studies in health technology and informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- explainable AI, clinical decision support systems, user-centered design, end-user involvement, physician engagement, clinical risk prediction, treatment planning
- MeSH terms
- User-Centered Design, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Decision Support Systems, Clinical
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review