Nicholas R Anderson1, Joan S Ash, Peter Tarczy-Hornoch. 1. Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, University of Washington, P.O. Box 357240, Seattle, WA 98195-7240, United States. nicka@u.washington.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore how the implementation of a comprehensive new bioinformatics analysis system would affect workflow, collaboration and information management in a small genetic research lab. DESIGN: This was a longitudinal qualitative study of seven individuals involved in genomic and proteomic research. The study data were gathered using the illuminative/responsive approach of immersion in the environment. Additional qualitative data were gathered using informal semi-structured interviews, participant observation in lab meetings, and direct observation of lab researchers engaged in specific tasks. MEASUREMENTS: Interview, observation and field note data were coded and analyzed based on three analysis perspectives. A subset of the data was independently evaluated by an external researcher to enhance the trustworthiness of results. RESULTS: Three reoccurring themes were observed in the study. (1) Satisfaction and acceptance of software tools tended to be role and goal specific. (2) The system was seen primarily as a measurement system rather than a "total laboratory analysis system". (3) Lab meetings deemphasized the system, preferring more traditional data analysis techniques. These themes support the observations that the system was not used to its full potential in the lab. CONCLUSION: Themes identified in this study suggest that sophisticated genetic researchers face similar problems of technology implementation as do professionals in other fields. We recommend that leadership support and on-going training and evolution of academic curricula can improve chances of bioinformatics analysis systems becoming used more effectively.
OBJECTIVE: To explore how the implementation of a comprehensive new bioinformatics analysis system would affect workflow, collaboration and information management in a small genetic research lab. DESIGN: This was a longitudinal qualitative study of seven individuals involved in genomic and proteomic research. The study data were gathered using the illuminative/responsive approach of immersion in the environment. Additional qualitative data were gathered using informal semi-structured interviews, participant observation in lab meetings, and direct observation of lab researchers engaged in specific tasks. MEASUREMENTS: Interview, observation and field note data were coded and analyzed based on three analysis perspectives. A subset of the data was independently evaluated by an external researcher to enhance the trustworthiness of results. RESULTS: Three reoccurring themes were observed in the study. (1) Satisfaction and acceptance of software tools tended to be role and goal specific. (2) The system was seen primarily as a measurement system rather than a "total laboratory analysis system". (3) Lab meetings deemphasized the system, preferring more traditional data analysis techniques. These themes support the observations that the system was not used to its full potential in the lab. CONCLUSION: Themes identified in this study suggest that sophisticated genetic researchers face similar problems of technology implementation as do professionals in other fields. We recommend that leadership support and on-going training and evolution of academic curricula can improve chances of bioinformatics analysis systems becoming used more effectively.
Authors: Nicholas R Anderson; E Sally Lee; J Scott Brockenbrough; Mark E Minie; Sherrilynne Fuller; James Brinkley; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-04-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: R B Altman; R Balling; J F Brinkley; E Coiera; F Consorti; M A Dhansay; A Geissbuhler; W Hersh; S Y Kwankam; N M Lorenzi; F Martin-Sanchez; G I Mihalas; Y Shahar; K Takabayashi; G Wiederhold Journal: Methods Inf Med Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Sahiti Myneni; Vimla L Patel; G Steven Bova; Jian Wang; Christopher F Ackerman; Cynthia A Berlinicke; Steve H Chen; Mikael Lindvall; Donald J Zack Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Andrew Morin; Ben Eisenbraun; Jason Key; Paul C Sanschagrin; Michael A Timony; Michelle Ottaviano; Piotr Sliz Journal: Elife Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 8.140