Archive \ Volume.17 2026 Issue 2

Communicating Calibrated Uncertainty at the Point of Dispensing

, , ,
  1. Department of Uncertainty Communication and Dispensing, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
  2. Department of Calibrated AI in Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
  3. Department of Point-of-Dispensing Decision Support, Faculty of Pharmacy, Al-Balqa Applied University, Salt, Jordan.

Abstract

Digital and artificial-intelligence-supported medication systems increasingly generate risk estimates, alerts, classifications, and recommendations that may appear more certain than their evidential basis permits. At the point of dispensing, pharmacists must interpret these outputs within brief encounters while considering incomplete data, medication-related consequences, patient preferences, and the limits of model applicability. Existing approaches commonly separate technical calibration, uncertainty display, clinical consequence, pharmacist judgement, and patient communication, leaving no coherent mechanism for translating uncertainty into a bounded medication decision. This article proposes a Point-of-Dispensing Uncertainty-Communication Framework that connects five functions: characterizing the source of uncertainty; appraising calibration and applicability; assessing the clinical consequence of error; constructing a decision-relevant communication package; and adapting that package through pharmacist mediation. The framework distinguishes confidence from calibration, uncertainty from recommendation, and model output from professional authority. It proposes five possible action boundaries: routine dispensing with counselling, enhanced uncertainty counselling, additional verification, temporary deferral, and escalation. The contribution is conceptual and non-empirical. Its proposed relationships require validation across technical performance, patient comprehension, appropriate human–AI reliance, medication-decision quality, workflow burden, safety, equity, and governance. Communication should preserve the source, direction, and practical meaning of uncertainty rather than merely simplify presentation. The framework does not establish universal thresholds, clinical effectiveness, regulatory acceptability, or deployment readiness. Its original contribution is to organize calibrated uncertainty as a pharmacist-mediated, consequence-sensitive communication and action problem rather than as a model metric or display feature alone.


Downloads: 30
Views: 77

How to cite:
Vancouver
Hassan L, Khalaf O, Jaber R, Mostafa R. Communicating Calibrated Uncertainty at the Point of Dispensing. Arch Pharm Pract. 2026;17(2):30-8. https://doi.org/10.51847/VZ1sqYHTmD
APA
Hassan, L., Khalaf, O., Jaber, R., & Mostafa, R. (2026). Communicating Calibrated Uncertainty at the Point of Dispensing. Archives of Pharmacy Practice, 17(2), 30-38. https://doi.org/10.51847/VZ1sqYHTmD

Download Citation
References
  1. Kompa B, Snoek J, Beam AL. Second opinion needed: Communicating uncertainty in medical machine learning. NPJ Digit Med. 2021;4(1):4. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-00367-3
  2. Corny J, Rajkumar A, Martin O, Dode X, Lajonchère JP, Billuart O, et al. A machine learning-based clinical decision support system to identify prescriptions with a high risk of medication error. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(11):1688-94. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaa154
  3. Graafsma J, Murphy RM, van de Garde EMW, Karapinar-Çarkit F, Derijks HJ, Hoge RHL, et al. The use of artificial intelligence to optimize medication alerts generated by clinical decision support systems: A scoping review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2024;31(6):1411-22. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocae076
  4. Elwyn G, Durand MA, Song J, Aarts J, Barr PJ, Berger Z, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: Multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;359. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4891
  5. Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, Wynants L, Steyerberg EW; Topic Group “Evaluating diagnostic tests and prediction models” of the STRATOS initiative. Calibration: The Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):230. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7
  6. Begoli E, Bhattacharya T, Kusnezov D. The need for uncertainty quantification in machine-assisted medical decision making. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1(1):20-3. doi:10.1038/s42256-018-0004-1
  7. Leibig C, Allken V, Ayhan MS, Berens P, Wahl S. Leveraging uncertainty information from deep neural networks for disease detection. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):17816. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-17876-z
  8. Kang DY, DeYoung PN, Tantiongloc J, Coleman TP, Owens RL. Statistical uncertainty quantification to augment clinical decision support: A first implementation in sleep medicine. NPJ Digit Med. 2021;4(1):142. doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00515-3
  9. Sutton RT, Pincock D, Baumgart DC, Sadowski DC, Fedorak RN, Kroeker KI. An overview of clinical decision support systems: Benefits, risks, and strategies for success. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3(1):17. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0221-y
  10. Kelly CJ, Karthikesalingam A, Suleyman M, Corrado G, King D. Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):195. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2
  11. Amann J, Blasimme A, Vayena E, Frey D, Madai VI; Precise4Q Consortium. Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: A multidisciplinary perspective. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020;20(1):310. doi:10.1186/s12911-020-01332-6
  12. Vasey B, Nagendran M, Campbell B, Clifton DA, Collins GS, Denaxas S, et al. Reporting guideline for the early-stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI. Nat Med. 2022;28(5):924-33. doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01772-9
  13. Spiegelhalter D. Risk and uncertainty communication. Annu Rev Stat Appl. 2017;4:31-60. doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-010814-020148
  14. van der Bles AM, van der Linden S, Freeman ALJ, Mitchell J, Galvao AB, Zaval L, et al. Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. R Soc Open Sci. 2019;6(5):181870. doi:10.1098/rsos.181870
  15. van der Bles AM, van der Linden S, Freeman ALJ, Spiegelhalter DJ. The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(14):7672-83. doi:10.1073/pnas.1913678117
  16. Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET. Designing visual aids that promote risk literacy: A systematic review of health research and evidence-based design heuristics. Hum Factors. 2017;59(4):582-627. doi:10.1177/0018720817690634
  17. Cordina M, Hämeen-Anttila K, Lauri J, Tabone S, Enlund H. Health and medication literacy and the desire to participate in pharmacotherapy decision making—comparison of two countries. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2018;14(9):817-23. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.06.009
  18. Weir KR, Bonner C, McCaffery K, Naganathan V, Carter SM, Rigby D, et al. Pharmacists and patients sharing decisions about medicines: Development and feasibility of a conversation guide. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(6):682-90. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.08.009
  19. Fosgerau CF, Kaae S. Furthering patient-centered counseling: Exploring new aspects around pharmacists’ experiences in pharmacy encounters through video-stimulated recall interviewing. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021;17(4):723-32. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.06.018
  20. Manias E, Hughes C, Woodward-Kron R, Ozavci G, Jorm C, Bucknall T. Decision-making about changing medications across transitions of care: Opportunities for enhanced patient and family engagement. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2024;20(5):520-30. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.02.002
  21. Gaube S, Suresh H, Raue M, Merritt A, Berkowitz SJ, Lermer E, et al. Do as AI say: Susceptibility in deployment of clinical decision-aids. NPJ Digit Med. 2021;4(1):31. doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00385-9
  22. Tschandl P, Rinner C, Apalla Z, Argenziano G, Codella N, Halpern A, et al. Human-computer collaboration for skin cancer recognition. Nat Med. 2020;26(8):1229-34. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0942-0
  23. Kiani A, Uyumazturk B, Rajpurkar P, Wang A, Gao R, Jones E, et al. Impact of a deep learning assistant on the histopathologic classification of liver cancer. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3(1):23. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0232-8
  24. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(4). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
  25. Sendak MP, Ratliff W, Sarro D, Alderton E, Futoma J, Gao M, et al. Real-world integration of a sepsis deep learning technology into routine clinical care: Implementation study. JMIR Med Inform. 2020;8(7). doi:10.2196/15182
  26. Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, Mullainathan S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science. 2019;366(6464):447-53. doi:10.1126/science.aax2342
  27. Roodbeen R, Vreke A, Boland G, Rademakers J, van den Muijsenbergh M, Noordman J, et al. Communication and shared decision-making with patients with limited health literacy; helpful strategies, barriers and suggestions for improvement reported by hospital-based palliative care providers. PLoS One. 2020;15(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0234926
  28. Ghassemi M, Oakden-Rayner L, Beam AL. The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care. Lancet Digit Health. 2021;3(11). doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00208-9
  29. Rudin C. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1(5):206-15. doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x
  30. Cabitza F, Rasoini R, Gensini GF. Unintended consequences of machine learning in medicine. JAMA. 2017;318(6):517-8. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7797

 

 


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.