Jayme L Wilder1,2, Devin Nadar3, Nitin Gujral3, Benjamin Ortiz4, Robert Stevens4, Faye Holder-Niles1,2, John Lee2,5, Jonathan M Gaffin2,6. 1. Division of General Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 2. Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 3. Innovation & Digital Health Accelerator, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 4. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey, United States. 5. Division of Allergy and Immunology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 6. Division of Respiratory Diseases, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Digital voice assistant technology provides unique opportunities to enhance clinical practice. We aimed to understand factors influencing pediatric providers' current and potential use of this technology in clinical practice. METHODS: We surveyed pediatric providers regarding current use and interest in voice technology in the workplace. Regression analyses evaluated provider characteristics associated with voice technology use. Among respondents not interested in voice technology, we elicited individual concerns. RESULTS: Among 114 respondents, 19 (16.7%) indicated current use of voice technology in clinical practice, and 51 (44.7%) indicated use of voice technology for nonclinical purposes. Fifty-four (47.4%) reported willingness to try digital voice assistant technology in the clinical setting. Providers who had longer clinic visits (odds ratio [OR], 3.11, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04, 9.33, p = 0.04), fewer patient encounters per day (p = 0.02), and worked in hospital-based practices (OR, 2.95, 95% CI, 1.08, 8.07, p = 0.03) were more likely to currently use voice technology in the office. Younger providers (p = 0.02) and those confident in the accuracy of voice technology (OR, 3.05, 95% CI, 1.38, 6.74, p = 0.005) were more willing to trial digital voice assistants in the clinical setting. Among respondents unwilling or unsure about trying voice assistant technology, the most common reasons elicited were concerns related to its accuracy (35%), efficiency (33%), and privacy (28%). CONCLUSION: This national survey evaluating use and attitudes toward digital voice assistant technology by pediatric providers found that while only one-eighth of pediatric providers currently use digital voice assistant technology in the clinical setting, almost half are interested in trying it in the future. Younger provider age and confidence in the accuracy of voice technology are associated with provider interest in using voice technology in the clinical setting. Future development of voice technology for clinical use will need to consider accuracy of information, efficiency of use, and patient privacy for successful integration into the workplace. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
OBJECTIVE: Digital voice assistant technology provides unique opportunities to enhance clinical practice. We aimed to understand factors influencing pediatric providers' current and potential use of this technology in clinical practice. METHODS: We surveyed pediatric providers regarding current use and interest in voice technology in the workplace. Regression analyses evaluated provider characteristics associated with voice technology use. Among respondents not interested in voice technology, we elicited individual concerns. RESULTS: Among 114 respondents, 19 (16.7%) indicated current use of voice technology in clinical practice, and 51 (44.7%) indicated use of voice technology for nonclinical purposes. Fifty-four (47.4%) reported willingness to try digital voice assistant technology in the clinical setting. Providers who had longer clinic visits (odds ratio [OR], 3.11, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04, 9.33, p = 0.04), fewer patient encounters per day (p = 0.02), and worked in hospital-based practices (OR, 2.95, 95% CI, 1.08, 8.07, p = 0.03) were more likely to currently use voice technology in the office. Younger providers (p = 0.02) and those confident in the accuracy of voice technology (OR, 3.05, 95% CI, 1.38, 6.74, p = 0.005) were more willing to trial digital voice assistants in the clinical setting. Among respondents unwilling or unsure about trying voice assistant technology, the most common reasons elicited were concerns related to its accuracy (35%), efficiency (33%), and privacy (28%). CONCLUSION: This national survey evaluating use and attitudes toward digital voice assistant technology by pediatric providers found that while only one-eighth of pediatric providers currently use digital voice assistant technology in the clinical setting, almost half are interested in trying it in the future. Younger provider age and confidence in the accuracy of voice technology are associated with provider interest in using voice technology in the clinical setting. Future development of voice technology for clinical use will need to consider accuracy of information, efficiency of use, and patient privacy for successful integration into the workplace. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Yaa A Kumah-Crystal; Claude J Pirtle; Harrison M Whyte; Edward S Goode; Shilo H Anders; Christoph U Lehmann Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Adam S Miner; Arnold Milstein; Stephen Schueller; Roshini Hegde; Christina Mangurian; Eleni Linos Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Alicia A Heapy; Diana M Higgins; Joseph L Goulet; Kathryn M LaChappelle; Mary A Driscoll; Rebecca A Czlapinski; Eugenia Buta; John D Piette; Sarah L Krein; Robert D Kerns Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: William G Adams; Barrett D Phillips; Janine D Bacic; Kathleen E Walsh; Christopher W Shanahan; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Blackford Middleton; Meryl Bloomrosen; Mark A Dente; Bill Hashmat; Ross Koppel; J Marc Overhage; Thomas H Payne; S Trent Rosenbloom; Charlotte Weaver; Jiajie Zhang Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Lotte N Dyrbye; Christine Sinsky; Omar Hasan; Daniel Satele; Jeff Sloan; Colin P West Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 7.616