## 2 Materials and Methods
### Extracting the Influencing Factors Using a Literature Review
#### 2.3.2 Extracting the Influencing Factors from the Reference Papers  
The method for extracting the influencing factors from the reference papers consists of the following steps (Figure 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Topic** & **Focus** & **Context** \\ \hline team * & communicat * & situation awareness & emergenc * \\ crews & collaborat * & sensemaking & critical situation \\ operators & coordinat * & mental model & safety \\  & interact * & cognit * & accident \\  & decision-making & collective * & incident \\  & teamwork & human error & high-risk \\  & team concept & team resilience & stressful \\  & communication patterns & adverse \\  & heuristic & socio-technical \\  & naturalistic & team performance \\  & & team cognition \\  & & team-based problem \\  & complex decision-making \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} symbol *_**_ means any characters are allowed, for example, communicat * includes communication, communicate, communicating, and so on.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: The search words used for the PRISMA method. Figure 2: The literature selection process using the PRISMA method. List and categorize the research findings. The research results of the reference papers (hereafter, papers) were recorded as research findings. By considering its contributions to team communication, each finding was classified into main or supporting findings. The supporting findings were examined for a second time to determine whether they could be moved into the main findings, and the remaining supporting findings were no longer involved in the study. For example, from [37], we extracted two research findings: \"computer-based procedures\" and \"communication types\". The \"computer-based procedure\" finding is a supporting finding because we were focused on spoken communications between the operators (the form of a procedure affects communication, and it is included in the final influencing factors, but the detailed design effort and display of the computer-based procedure did not). Each paper contributed at least one (\"communication types\" from [37] and \"communication database\" from [38]) and up to seven main findings (from [39; 40]). Hereafter, findings refer to the main findings. Next, the findings' descriptions were revisited, their names were revised (if needed, to combine duplicates), and they were allocated to a category. The categorization was a result of clustering similar findings. We described each category to maintain consistency. For example, the \"communication types\" finding in [37] was a table titled \"Communication Types\", containing 3 columns: types, definitions, and examples. The types column listed: command, call, and so on, with their definition and examples in the respective columns. We decided to rename this finding as \"communication content type\", which we defined as \"the type of communication content for categorization purposes (coding schemes included)\". The findings of [41] on 25 communication dimensions (information questions, help or opinion questions, etc.) and [42]'s team communication information (Command, Action-report, Inquiry, etc.) were also renamed as \"communication content type\", as well as all findings on speech coding schemes. After the analysis, we excluded 16 findings because they were not suitable team communication factors, such as the co-working pattern in [43] or other/previous paper's findings that were already included (communication characteristics in [40]); however, when the other paper was inaccessible, we included the findings. We ended up with 142 findings from 72 papers divided across 17 categories. This categorization was created to gather similar findings; thus, the resulting categories were scattered throughout different concepts and did not follow a certain order or dimension. Examples of the categories are cognitive functions, communication actors' structure, communication content type, communication utterances, and teamwork behaviors. We needed to choose a specific context to organize the findings effectively and consistently.