Difference between revisions of "Lottridge DM, Chignell M, Danicic-Mizdrak R, Pavlovic NJ, Kushniruk A, Straus SE. Group differences in physician responses to handheld presentation of clinical evidence: a verbal protocol analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007 Jul 26;7:22."
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Lottridge DM, Chignell M, Danicic-Mizdrak R, Pavlovic NJ, Kushniruk A, Straus SE. Group differences in physician responses to handheld presentation of clinical evidence: a verbal protocol analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007 Jul 26;7:22. | Lottridge DM, Chignell M, Danicic-Mizdrak R, Pavlovic NJ, Kushniruk A, Straus SE. Group differences in physician responses to handheld presentation of clinical evidence: a verbal protocol analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007 Jul 26;7:22. | ||
| − | Introduction | + | '''Introduction''' |
Since physicians use mobile computers in the health care environment, authors stress the importance of obtaining information about users' needs and preferences regarding these devices and relevant clinical practice tools available. The authors’ goal was to develop a wireless medical information system that would bring the latest evidence to frontline physicians via handheld devices; then they attempt to identify individual differences in physicians' needs for the presentation of evidence resources and preferences for mobile devices. | Since physicians use mobile computers in the health care environment, authors stress the importance of obtaining information about users' needs and preferences regarding these devices and relevant clinical practice tools available. The authors’ goal was to develop a wireless medical information system that would bring the latest evidence to frontline physicians via handheld devices; then they attempt to identify individual differences in physicians' needs for the presentation of evidence resources and preferences for mobile devices. | ||
| − | Methods | + | '''Methods''' |
A usability testing session, aimed at designing, developing and evaluating clinical tools for mobile devices, was adopted in order to assess the differential customization requirements pertaining to identifiable subgroups of users. Study participants consisted of physicians selected from 3 user groups: general internists, family physicians, and internal medicine residents, both from urban and semi-urban settings. Interviews were conducted that consisted of using prototypes in response to task-based scenarios, and they were implemented on tablet style PCs and pocket PCs. | A usability testing session, aimed at designing, developing and evaluating clinical tools for mobile devices, was adopted in order to assess the differential customization requirements pertaining to identifiable subgroups of users. Study participants consisted of physicians selected from 3 user groups: general internists, family physicians, and internal medicine residents, both from urban and semi-urban settings. Interviews were conducted that consisted of using prototypes in response to task-based scenarios, and they were implemented on tablet style PCs and pocket PCs. | ||
| − | Results | + | '''Results''' |
Forty-seven physicians recruited from general internal medicine, family practice clinics and a residency training program participated in the study. Findings included: | Forty-seven physicians recruited from general internal medicine, family practice clinics and a residency training program participated in the study. Findings included: | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
(4) Family physicians prefer bottom-line guideline information more than the other groups; they also prefer larger screens and are less concerned about mobility. Internal medicine physicians are most concerned about mobility, while residents prefer large screen size and high mobility. | (4) Family physicians prefer bottom-line guideline information more than the other groups; they also prefer larger screens and are less concerned about mobility. Internal medicine physicians are most concerned about mobility, while residents prefer large screen size and high mobility. | ||
| − | Discussion | + | '''Discussion''' |
The study explored user needs for the presentation of clinical evidence on handheld computers. It found that different types of physicians have different needs and preferences for evidence-based resources and handheld devices. This study shows how user testing can be incorporated into the process of design to inform group-based customization. | The study explored user needs for the presentation of clinical evidence on handheld computers. It found that different types of physicians have different needs and preferences for evidence-based resources and handheld devices. This study shows how user testing can be incorporated into the process of design to inform group-based customization. | ||
| − | Comment | + | '''Comment''' |
This study demonstrates that handheld presentation of clinical evidence should be personalized according to the requirements and preferences of different types of physicians. Users demonstrated different needs for the amount of evidence shown and the level of detail provided. | This study demonstrates that handheld presentation of clinical evidence should be personalized according to the requirements and preferences of different types of physicians. Users demonstrated different needs for the amount of evidence shown and the level of detail provided. | ||
Revision as of 01:16, 9 November 2007
Lottridge DM, Chignell M, Danicic-Mizdrak R, Pavlovic NJ, Kushniruk A, Straus SE. Group differences in physician responses to handheld presentation of clinical evidence: a verbal protocol analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007 Jul 26;7:22.
Introduction
Since physicians use mobile computers in the health care environment, authors stress the importance of obtaining information about users' needs and preferences regarding these devices and relevant clinical practice tools available. The authors’ goal was to develop a wireless medical information system that would bring the latest evidence to frontline physicians via handheld devices; then they attempt to identify individual differences in physicians' needs for the presentation of evidence resources and preferences for mobile devices.
Methods
A usability testing session, aimed at designing, developing and evaluating clinical tools for mobile devices, was adopted in order to assess the differential customization requirements pertaining to identifiable subgroups of users. Study participants consisted of physicians selected from 3 user groups: general internists, family physicians, and internal medicine residents, both from urban and semi-urban settings. Interviews were conducted that consisted of using prototypes in response to task-based scenarios, and they were implemented on tablet style PCs and pocket PCs.
Results
Forty-seven physicians recruited from general internal medicine, family practice clinics and a residency training program participated in the study. Findings included: (1) Physician specialty had a greater impact on device and information-presentation preferences than age and gender. Different user groups preferred differing formats and information depth and breadth (tablet or pocket PC). (2) A significant negative correlation between age and search engine use with use declining with increasing age. (3) Positive usability comments focused on navigability, scrolling and formatting issues such as colors and spacing. (4) Family physicians prefer bottom-line guideline information more than the other groups; they also prefer larger screens and are less concerned about mobility. Internal medicine physicians are most concerned about mobility, while residents prefer large screen size and high mobility.
Discussion
The study explored user needs for the presentation of clinical evidence on handheld computers. It found that different types of physicians have different needs and preferences for evidence-based resources and handheld devices. This study shows how user testing can be incorporated into the process of design to inform group-based customization.
Comment
This study demonstrates that handheld presentation of clinical evidence should be personalized according to the requirements and preferences of different types of physicians. Users demonstrated different needs for the amount of evidence shown and the level of detail provided.
Lushaj
