Group differences in physician responses to handheld presentation of clinical evidence: a verbal protocol analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To identify individual differences in physicians' needs for the presentation of evidence resources and preferences for mobile devices.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Within-groups analysis of responses to semi-structured interviews. Interviews consisted of using prototypes in response to task-based scenarios. The prototypes were implemented on two different form factors: a tablet style PC and a pocketPC. Participants were from three user groups: general internists, family physicians and medicine residents, and from two different settings: urban and semi-urban. Verbal protocol analysis, which consists of coding utterances, was conducted on the transcripts of the testing sessions. Statistical relationships were investigated between staff physicians' and residents' background variables, self-reported experiences with the interfaces, and verbal code frequencies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>47 physicians were recruited from general internal medicine, family practice clinics and a residency training program. The mean age of participants was 42.6 years. Physician specialty had a greater effect on device and information-presentation preferences than gender, age, setting or previous technical experience. Family physicians preferred the screen size of the tablet computer and were less concerned about its portability. Residents liked the screen size of the tablet, but preferred the portability of the pocketPC. Internists liked the portability of the pocketPC, but saw less advantage to the large screen of the tablet computer (F[2,44] = 4.94, p = .012).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>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.</p

Customization of Medical Report Data

Structured reporting offers a number of theoretical advantages, perhaps the most important of which is creation of standardized report databases. The standardized data created can in turn be used to customize data display, report content, historical data retrieval, interpretation analysis, and results communication in both a context and user-specific manner. In addition, these referenceable report databases can be used to facilitate the practice of evidence based medicine, through data-driven meta-analysis and determination of best practice guidelines. This concept will only be realized if the customized data delivery technology provides real and tangible value to end users, accentuates workflow, can be seamlessly integrated into existing information system technologies, and be shown to yield reproducibility of the evidence domain. The time is here for the medical imaging and clinical communities to embrace this vision in order to improve clinical outcomes and patient safety