In the current study we investigated the explicit representation of constraints or “rules” in a team-based planning task using shared representations. We manipulated the variable of text, which has had limited attention in human factors literature. In addition, we used the subject variable of gender, also unique in human factors research. We also demonstrated successful use of a game-based experimental platform to investigate these variables using multiple process and performance measures. Findings highlight the need to develop principles concerning text for health information that do not currently exist. All findings involve considerations applicable to the design of health information, rich in content that has to be located, comprehended, and applied in a potentially time sensitive manner for individuals with differing backgrounds and levels of expertise.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BidmonS.TerlutterR. (2015). Gender Differences in Searching for Health Information on the Internet and the Virtual Patient-Physician Relationship in Germany: Exploratory Results on How Men and Women Differ and Why. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(6), e156. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4127
2.
ByrnesJ. P.MillerD. C.SchaferW. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367
3.
CaligtanC. A.CarrollD. L.HurleyA. C.Gersh-ZaremskiR.DykesP. C. (2012). Bedside information technology to support patient-centered care. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 81(7), 442–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.12.005
4.
CarliL. (2010). Gender and group behavior. In ChrislerJ. C.McCrearyD. R. (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology. New York: Springer.
5.
EaglyA. H.JohnsonB. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
6.
EkS. (2015). Gender differences in health information behaviour: a Finnish population-based survey. Health Promotion International, 30(3), 736–745. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dat063
7.
FishmanP. M. (1983). Interaction: The work women do. In ThomeB.KramaraeC.HenleyN. (Eds.), Language, gender, and society (pp. 89–101). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
LippaK. D.FeufelM. A.RobinsonF. E.ShalinV. L. (2016). Navigating the Decision Space: Shared Medical Decision Making as Distributed Cognition. Qualitative Health Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665347
14.
LippaK. D.ShalinV. L. (2016). Creating a common trajectory: Shared decision making and distributed cognition in medical consultations. Patient Experience Journal, 3(2), 73–82.
15.
LipshitzR.StraussO. (1997). Coping with Uncertainty: A Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2679
16.
ManierreM. J. (2015). Gaps in knowledge: Tracking and explaining gender differences in health information seeking. Social Science & Medicine, 128, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.028
17.
Meyers-LevyJ.MaheswaranD. (1991). Exploring males’ and females’ processing strategies: when and why do differences occur in consumers’ processing of ad claims. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 63–70.
18.
MoonA.WeissblumA. (2004). 10 Days in Africa: The unpredictable game of making connections. Madison, WI: Out of the Box Publishing.
19.
MulacA.LundellT. L. (1986). Linguistic contributors to the gender-linked language effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5(2), 81–101.
20.
MulacA.LundellT. L.BradacJ. J. (1986). Male/female language differences and attributional consequences in a public speaking situation: Toward an explanation of the gender-linked language effect. Communications Monographs, 53(2), 115–129.
21.
MullinixG.GrayO.ColadoJ.VeinottE.LeonardJ.PapautskyE. L.… FlachJ. (2013). Heuristica: Designing a serious game for improving decision making. In 2013 IEEE International Games Innovation Conference (IGIC) (pp. 250–255). https://doi.org/10.1109/IGIC.2013.6659159
22.
PapautskyE. L.ShalinV. L. (2010). The Advantages of Using Color to Represent Constraints in Collaborative Planning Representations. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 4(2), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1518/155534310X12832748852157
RoterD. L.HallJ. A.AokiY. (2002). Physician Gender Effects in Medical Communication: A Meta-analytic Review. JAMA, 288(6), 756–764. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.6.756
25.
SandersM. S.McCormackE. J. (1993). Human factors in engineering and design (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
26.
SayR. E.ThomsonR. (2003). The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions-challenges for doctors. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 542.
TsugawaY.JenaA. B.FigueroaJ. F.OravE. J.BlumenthalD. M.JhaA. K. (2017). Comparison of Hospital Mortality and Readmission Rates for Medicare Patients Treated by Male vs Female Physicians. JAMA Internal Medicine, 177(2), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7875
31.
VeinottE. S.LeonardJ.PapautskyE. L.PerelmanB.StankovicA.LorinceJ.… HoffmanR. R. (2013). The effect of camera perspective and session duration on training decision making in a serious video game. In 2013 IEEE International Games Innovation Conference (IGIC) (pp. 256–262). https://doi.org/10.1109/IGIC.2013.6659170
32.
WickensC. D.GordonS. E.LiuY.LeeJ. (1998). An introduction to human factors engineering.
33.
WilliamsM. V.DavisT.ParkerR. M.WeissB. D. others. (2002). The role of health literacy in patient-physician communication. Family Medicine, 34(5), 383–389.
34.
WoolleyA. W.ChabrisC. F.PentlandA.HashmiN.MaloneT. W. (2010). Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147
