BACKGROUND: The Infobutton Manager (IM) is an application that provides clinical users with context-specific links to health information resources. Usage of the first version (IM-1) suggested that the user interface was suboptimal. METHODS: We conducted a laboratory-based observational study of IM-1, use, applied standard user interface design techniques to address observed problems, developed a new version (IM-2), conducted a second observational study and analyzed log files of the actual use of IM-1 and IM-2. RESULTS: Modifications to the IM resulted in a reduction of "perusal time" (time between evocation of the IM and selecting a topic) from 11.13 to 5.92 seconds. However, evaluation of 14 months of usage logs did not show an appreciable effect on the perusal time or the rate at which users selected a topic once the IM was evoked. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory analysis of the IM was evoked. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory analysis of the IM guided redesign that led to improved performance in the laboratory, but did not address factors that are influencing use.
BACKGROUND: The Infobutton Manager (IM) is an application that provides clinical users with context-specific links to health information resources. Usage of the first version (IM-1) suggested that the user interface was suboptimal. METHODS: We conducted a laboratory-based observational study of IM-1, use, applied standard user interface design techniques to address observed problems, developed a new version (IM-2), conducted a second observational study and analyzed log files of the actual use of IM-1 and IM-2. RESULTS: Modifications to the IM resulted in a reduction of "perusal time" (time between evocation of the IM and selecting a topic) from 11.13 to 5.92 seconds. However, evaluation of 14 months of usage logs did not show an appreciable effect on the perusal time or the rate at which users selected a topic once the IM was evoked. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory analysis of the IM was evoked. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory analysis of the IM guided redesign that led to improved performance in the laboratory, but did not address factors that are influencing use.
Authors: S Trent Rosenbloom; Antoine J Geissbuhler; William D Dupont; Dario A Giuse; Douglas A Talbert; William M Tierney; W Dale Plummer; William W Stead; Randolph A Miller Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-03-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Debra S Ketchell; Leilani St Anna; David Kauff; Barak Gaster; Diane Timberlake Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-05-19 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Suzanne Bakken; Leanne M Currie; Nam-Ju Lee; W Dan Roberts; Sarah A Collins; James J Cimino Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2007-09-29 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: James J Cimino; Casey L Overby; Emily B Devine; Nathan C Hulse; Xia Jing; Saverio M Maviglia; Guilherme Del Fiol Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2013-11-16
Authors: David A Cook; Miguel T Teixeira; Bret Se Heale; James J Cimino; Guilherme Del Fiol Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497