55
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Review of health information technology usability study methodologies

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Usability factors are a major obstacle to health information technology (IT) adoption. The purpose of this paper is to review and categorize health IT usability study methods and to provide practical guidance on health IT usability evaluation. 2025 references were initially retrieved from the Medline database from 2003 to 2009 that evaluated health IT used by clinicians. Titles and abstracts were first reviewed for inclusion. Full-text articles were then examined to identify final eligibility studies. 629 studies were categorized into the five stages of an integrated usability specification and evaluation framework that was based on a usability model and the system development life cycle (SDLC)-associated stages of evaluation. Theoretical and methodological aspects of 319 studies were extracted in greater detail and studies that focused on system validation (SDLC stage 2) were not assessed further. The number of studies by stage was: stage 1, task-based or user–task interaction, n=42; stage 2, system–task interaction, n=310; stage 3, user–task–system interaction, n=69; stage 4, user–task–system–environment interaction, n=54; and stage 5, user–task–system–environment interaction in routine use, n=199. The studies applied a variety of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Methodological issues included lack of theoretical framework/model, lack of details regarding qualitative study approaches, single evaluation focus, environmental factors not evaluated in the early stages, and guideline adherence as the primary outcome for decision support system evaluations. Based on the findings, a three-level stratified view of health IT usability evaluation is proposed and methodological guidance is offered based upon the type of interaction that is of primary interest in the evaluation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review.

          A systematic review of the literature was performed to examine the impact of electronic health records (EHRs) on documentation time of physicians and nurses and to identify factors that may explain efficiency differences across studies. In total, 23 papers met our inclusion criteria; five were randomized controlled trials, six were posttest control studies, and 12 were one-group pretest-posttest designs. Most studies (58%) collected data using a time and motion methodology in comparison to work sampling (33%) and self-report/survey methods (8%). A weighted average approach was used to combine results from the studies. The use of bedside terminals and central station desktops saved nurses, respectively, 24.5% and 23.5% of their overall time spent documenting during a shift. Using bedside or point-of-care systems increased documentation time of physicians by 17.5%. In comparison, the use of central station desktops for computerized provider order entry (CPOE) was found to be inefficient, increasing the work time from 98.1% to 328.6% of physician's time per working shift (weighted average of CPOE-oriented studies, 238.4%). Studies that conducted their evaluation process relatively soon after implementation of the EHR tended to demonstrate a reduction in documentation time in comparison to the increases observed with those that had a longer time period between implementation and the evaluation process. This review highlighted that a goal of decreased documentation time in an EHR project is not likely to be realized. It also identified how the selection of bedside or central station desktop EHRs may influence documentation time for the two main user groups, physicians and nurses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluation of health information systems-problems and challenges.

            Information technology (IT) is emerging in health care. A rigorous evaluation of this technology is recommended and of high importance for decision makers and users. However, many authors report problems during the evaluation of information technology in health care. In this paper, we discuss some of these problems, and propose possible solutions for these problems. Based on own experience and backed up by a literature review, some important problems during IT evaluation in health care together with their reasons, consequences and possible solutions are presented and structured. We define three main problem areas-the complexity of the evaluation object, the complexity of an evaluation project, and the motivation for evaluation. Many evaluation problems can be subsumed under those three problem areas. A broadly accepted framework for evaluation of IT in healthcare seems desirable to address those problems. Such a framework should help to formulate relevant questions, to find adequate methods and tools, and to apply them in a sensible way.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Exploring barriers and facilitators to the use of computerized clinical reminders.

              Evidence-based practices in preventive care and chronic disease management are inconsistently implemented. Computerized clinical reminders (CRs) can improve compliance with these practices in outpatient settings. However, since clinician adherence to CR recommendations is quite variable and declines over time, we conducted observations to determine barriers and facilitators to the effective use of CRs. We conducted an observational study of nurses and providers interacting with CRs in outpatient primary care clinics for two days in each of four geographically distributed Veterans Administration (VA) medical centers. Three observers recorded interactions of 35 nurses and 55 physicians and mid-level practitioners with the CRs, which function as part of an electronic medical record. Field notes were typed, coded in a spreadsheet, and then sorted into logical categories. We then integrated findings across observations into meaningful patterns and abstracted the data into themes, such as recurrent strategies. Several of these themes translated directly to barriers and facilitators to effective CR use. Optimally using the CR system for its intended purpose was impeded by (1) lack of coordination between nurses and providers; (2) using the reminders while not with the patient, impairing data acquisition and/or implementation of recommended actions; (3) workload; (4) lack of CR flexibility; and (5) poor interface usability. Facilitators included (1) limiting the number of reminders at a site; (2) strategic location of the computer workstations; (3) integration of reminders into workflow; and (4) the ability to document system problems and receive prompt administrator feedback. We identified barriers that might explain some of the variability in the use of CRs. Although these barriers may be difficult to overcome, some strategies may increase user acceptance and therefore the effectiveness of the CRs. These include explicitly assigning responsibility for each CR to nurses or providers, improving visibility of positive results from CRs in the electronic medical record, creating a feedback mechanism about CR use, and limiting the overall number of CRs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Am Med Inform Assoc
                J Am Med Inform Assoc
                jamia
                amiajnl
                Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
                BMJ Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                1067-5027
                1527-974X
                9 August 2011
                May-Jun 2012
                9 August 2011
                : 19
                : 3
                : 413-422
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
                [2 ]School of Nursing, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York City, New York, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence to Po-Yin Yen, Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University, 333 W 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA; po-yin.yen@ 123456osumc.edu
                Article
                amiajnl-2010-000020
                10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000020
                3341772
                21828224
                f53972f6-4c22-4e28-be87-955b78a67a6e
                © 2012, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

                History
                : 25 October 2010
                : 11 July 2011
                Categories
                Review
                1506

                Bioinformatics & Computational biology
                usability,machine learning,statistical learning,health it,privacy technology,evaluation,predictive modeling,review,nursing informatics

                Comments

                Comment on this article