Aug 2026· Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care· Vol 15, pp. 126 - 130· 1 citation· 26 references
TL;DR
Two short vignettes and a design guide to help human factors researchers create explanation systems that are practical and trustworthy are presented to show how explainability can become part of the care system instead of being treated as a separate technical feature.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are now used in many areas of healthcare, but stakeholders in the care like clinicians, patients and caregivers still experience mistrust, confusion, and uncertainty when AI-supported recommendations appear in their care. Traditional explainable AI (XAI) methods focus on showing how the algorithm works, which may help developers but often does not support stakeholders in real clinical situations. Human-centered AI research shows that explanations need to match user tasks, mental models, and decision needs. And the SEIPS 2.0 and SEIPS 3.0 frameworks offer a clear structure for placing explanation strategies across the patient and caregiver journey. In this report, we extend two non-algorithmic approaches called Collaborative Explainable AI (CXAI) and Cognitive Tutorials, and we use SEIPS 2.0 and SEIPS 3.0 to guide where and how these methods should be used. We also bring evidence from qualitative studies showing perspective of non-clinical stakeholders on AI in the journey, that patients prefer explanation through conversation, and that caregivers often struggle when AI outputs are unclear or incomplete. We present two short vignettes and a design guide to help human factors researchers create explanation systems that are practical and trustworthy. Our goal is to show how explainability can become part of the care system instead of being treated as a separate technical feature.
Effective mitigation must address both individual barriers, including time pressure, variable AI literacy, and reluctance to challenge automated output, and systemic barriers, including weak governance, opaque tools, misaligned incentives, and inadequate monitoring.
Jeffrey V. Esteron, Rhocette M. Sn Agustin, S. R. Y. Basilio et al.· Patient Education and Counse...· 0 citations
GenAI should augment, not replace, clinical judgment and relational care, and responsible use in geriatrics requires transparency, clinician-in-the-loop oversight, validation in older adult populations using age-relevant outcomes, and governance safeguards to protect dignity, safety, and equity.
A. Bharija, Ariba Khan, J. Pavon et al.· Journal of The American Geri...· 1 citation
This article proposes seven questions that clinicians can run through to evaluate any clinical AI tool in the time it takes to read an abstract, alongside a traffic-light schema for matching oversight to risk and a short list of demands clinicians should make of vendors and institutions.
Alaa Abdelqader, M. Alkhateeb, Abdullah Al-Marrawi et al.· Avicenna Journal of Medicine· 0 citations
FIT is a proposed framework, designed to reduce three specific risks that have been linked to conversational MH-AI, and the dimensions are intended as practical starting guardrails, not as an exhaustive list.
J. Steinberg, W. Thies, John R. Weisz· Journal of Consulting and Cl...· 0 citations
A dual-view approach that connects clinical practice with computational methods is presented, establishing a five-level competency scheme following Miller’s Pyramid and linking deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning patterns to common medical goals and tasks.
A list of eight best practices was created to assist developers with designing AI systems in a way that would reduce the overall risk of harm for users attempting to use their AI for mental health cases.
Joshua Frankenfield, Briana M. Sobel, Barbara Chaparro· Proceedings of the Internati...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.