Pierre Pluye1, Roland M Grad. 1. Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, 517 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H2W 1S4.
Abstract
RATIONALE: We recently proposed a new method to systematically assess the cognitive impact of knowledge resources on health professionals. OBJECTIVE: To describe promises and shortcomings of a handheld computer prototype of this method. BACKGROUND: We developed an impact scale, and combined this scale with a Computerized Ecological Momentary Assessment technique. METHOD: We conducted a mixed methods evaluation study using a 7-item scale within a questionnaire linked to a commercial knowledge resource. Over two months of Family Medicine training, 17 residents assessed the impact of 1,981 information hits retrieved on handheld computer. From observations, log-reports, archives of hits and interviews, we examined issues associated with hardware, software and the questionnaire. FINDINGS: Fifteen residents found the questionnaire clearly written, and only one pointed to the questionnaire as a major reason for their low level of use of the resource. Residents reported technical problems (e.g. screen trouble) or limitations (e.g. limited tracking function) and socio-technical issues (e.g. software dependency). CONCLUSION: Lessons from this study suggest improvements to guide future implementation of our method for assessing the cognitive impact of knowledge resources on health professionals.
RATIONALE: We recently proposed a new method to systematically assess the cognitive impact of knowledge resources on health professionals. OBJECTIVE: To describe promises and shortcomings of a handheld computer prototype of this method. BACKGROUND: We developed an impact scale, and combined this scale with a Computerized Ecological Momentary Assessment technique. METHOD: We conducted a mixed methods evaluation study using a 7-item scale within a questionnaire linked to a commercial knowledge resource. Over two months of Family Medicine training, 17 residents assessed the impact of 1,981 information hits retrieved on handheld computer. From observations, log-reports, archives of hits and interviews, we examined issues associated with hardware, software and the questionnaire. FINDINGS: Fifteen residents found the questionnaire clearly written, and only one pointed to the questionnaire as a major reason for their low level of use of the resource. Residents reported technical problems (e.g. screen trouble) or limitations (e.g. limited tracking function) and socio-technical issues (e.g. software dependency). CONCLUSION: Lessons from this study suggest improvements to guide future implementation of our method for assessing the cognitive impact of knowledge resources on health professionals.
Authors: Roland M Grad; Yuejing Meng; Gillian Bartlett; Martin Dawes; Pierre Pluye; Miriam Boillat; Goutham Rao; Roger Thomas Journal: Fam Med Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Lisa L Willett; Carlos A Estrada; Terry C Wall; Heather L Coley; Julius Ngu; William Curry; Amanda Salanitro; Thomas K Houston Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2011-06