Abstract:Clinical decision-making is augmented by decision-support systems (DSSs). To counter overreliance on DSSs, several methods have been proposed that create friction in order to promote cognitive engagement and reflection. In this paper, we investigate how two such forms of friction, namely data-driven questions and `what-if' analysis, are perceived by medical experts. For a real-world decision task, we replicated a DSS used in clinical practice and gathered clinicians' feedback on a prototype through in-situ interviews (n=7). Our findings suggest that while the questions were perceived as unhelpful for reflective thinking, they could serve as reminders to consider relevant information. Furthermore, inspecting `what-if' hypotheticals was found useful for potentially improving patient care. Clinicians saw our prototype as a promising training tool for novice clinicians. From the clinicians' feedback, we make recommendations for designing friction in work practices. Our work contributes to human-AI interaction research, which aims to encourage reflection to mitigate AI overreliance.
From: Simon Fischer [view email]
[v1]
Fri, 12 Jun 2026 12:42:44 UTC (495 KB)
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。