Cited by 3Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationElectronic Health Records Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

User-Centered Methods in Explainable AI Development for Hospital Clinical Decision Support: A Scoping Review

Open access
Van Dort, Bethany A., Engelsma, Thomas, Medlock, Stephanie, Dusseljee-Peute, Linda·2025·Studies in Health Technology and Informatics

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.3233/shti250228

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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