This paper focuses on algorithmic bias of machine learning and artificial intelligence applications in healthcare information systems. Based on the quantitative data and qualitative comments from a survey and interviews with healthcare professionals, who have different job roles (e.g., clinical vs. administrative), this study provides findings about the relationships between algorithmic bias, perceived fairness, and the intended acceptance and adoption of ML algorithms and algorithm generated outcomes. The results suggest that the opinions of healthcare professionals toward the causes of algorithmic bias, the criteria of algorithm assessment, the perceived fairness, and bias mitigation approaches may vary depending on their job roles, perspectives, tasks, and the algorithm characteristics. More research is needed to investigate algorithmic bias to ensure fairness and equality in healthcare.
The development of the collaborative critique (CC) usability inspection method was driven by the need for systems, ranging from the simple to the complex, to lessen the workload on their users by being better collaborative partners. In the collaborative view of system-user interaction, the role of the system is expanded to that of a partner that must help its users achieve their goals. This perspective shifts the dynamic from focusing on the user's ability to make effective and efficient use of the system to the system's usefulness within a given task, user, and interaction context, thereby reducing the user's cognitive and physical efforts. The CC method consists of a walkthrough evaluation in which the questions answered at each step of the interaction assess the collaborative strength of the system. This method is further distinguished by the inclusion of questions that access the behavior of the system in error situations, which are known to be particularly burdensome to users of complex systems. In this paper, we provide a detailed description of the CC method and its application and demonstrate its usefulness in evaluating an interface. The results of a laboratory evaluation show that the method performed well in identifying the problems experienced by users across all severity levels and predicted almost all of the problems associated with error situations.