ArticleApplied clinical informatics2013
Usability characteristics of self-administered computer-assisted interviewing in the emergency department: factors affecting ease of use, efficiency, and entry error.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a Medical Interview-Assistance System Using Artificial Intelligence for Resident Physicians Interviewing Simulated Patients: A Crossover, Randomized, Controlled Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Trial
- Effect of PreAnaesThesia Computerized Health (PATCH) Assessment on Duration of Nurse-Patient Consultation and Patient Experience: A Pilot Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Trial
- Preserving Patient Stories: Bioethical and Legal Implications Related to the Shift from Traditional to Digital Anamnesis.Clinics and practice · 2024Review
- Usability of an App for Medical History Taking in General Practice From the Patients' Perspective: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Digital Tools Designed to Obtain the History of Present Illness From Patients: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- A pilot study of patient satisfaction with a self-completed tablet-based digital questionnaire for collecting the patient's medical history in an emergency department.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Impact of a Commercial Artificial Intelligence-Driven Patient Self-Assessment Solution on Waiting Times at General Internal Medicine Outpatient Departments: Retrospective Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- Article
- Patients Decision Aid System Based on FHIR Profiles.Journal of medical systems · 2018Article
- Willingness and Ability of Older Adults in the Emergency Department to Provide Clinical Information Using a Tablet Computer.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2016Article
- Personalization and Patient Involvement in Decision Support Systems: Current Trends.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2015Review
- Implementation of an audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) system in a general medicine clinic: patient response burden.Applied clinical informatics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSelf-administered computer-assisted interviewing (SACAI) gathers accurate information from patients and could facilitate Emergency Department (ED) diagnosis. As part of an ongoing research effort whose long-range goal is to develop automated medical interviewing for diagnostic decision support, we explored usability attributes of SACAI in the ED.
methodsCross-sectional study at two urban, academic EDs. Convenience sample recruited daily over six weeks. Adult, non-level I trauma patients were eligible. We collected data on ease of use (self-reported difficulty, researcher documented need for help), efficiency (mean time-per-click on a standardized interview segment), and error (self-report age mismatched with age derived from electronic health records) when using SACAI on three different instruments: Elo TouchSystems ESY15A2 (finger touch), Toshiba M200 (with digitizer pen), and Motion C5 (with digitizer pen). We calculated descriptive statistics and used regression analysis to evaluate the impact of patient and computer factors on time-per-click.
results841 participants completed all SACAI questions. Few (<1%) thought using the touch computer to ascertain medical information was difficult. Most (86%) required no assistance. Participants needing help were older (54 ± 19 vs. 40 ± 15 years, p<0.001) and more often lacked internet at home (13.4% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.004). On multivariate analysis, female sex (p<0.001), White (p<0.001) and other (p = 0.05) race (vs. Black race), younger age (p<0.001), internet access at home (p<0.001), high school graduation (p = 0.04), and touch screen entry (vs. digitizer pen) (p = 0.01) were independent predictors of decreased time-per-click. Participant misclick errors were infrequent, but, in our sample, occurred only during interviews using a digitizer pen rather than a finger touch-screen interface (1.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.09). DISCUSSION: Our results support the facility of interactions between ED patients and SACAI. Demographic factors associated with need for assistance or slower interviews could serve as important triggers to offering human support for SACAI interviews during implementation.
conclusionUnderstanding human-computer interactions in real-world clinical settings is essential to implementing automated interviewing as means to a larger long-term goal of enhancing clinical care, diagnostic accuracy, and patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.