ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2017
Design and validation of a questionnaire to evaluate the usability of computerized critical care information systems.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and Facilitators of the Use of Computerized Critical Care Information Systems in the Intensive Care Unit: Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- [Comparison of current critical care information systems from the perspective of clinical users : Summary of the results of a German nationwide survey].Der Anaesthesist · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The implementation of computerized critical care information systems (CCIS) can improve the quality of clinical care and staff satisfaction, but also holds risks of disrupting the workflow with consecutive negative impacts. The usability of CCIS is one of the key factors determining their benefits and weaknesses. However, no tailored instrument exists to measure the usability of such systems. Therefore, the aim of this study was to design and validate a questionnaire that measures the usability of CCIS. Following a mixed-method design approach, we developed a questionnaire comprising two evaluation models to assess the usability of CCIS: (1) the task-specific model rates the usability individually for several tasks which CCIS could support and which we derived by analyzing work processes in the ICU; (2) the characteristic-specific model rates the different aspects of the usability, as defined by the international standard "ergonomics of human-system interaction". We tested validity and reliability of the digital version of the questionnaire in a sample population. In the sample population of 535 participants both usability evaluation models showed a strong correlation with the overall rating of the system (multiple correlation coefficients ≥0.80) as well as a very high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.93). The novel questionnaire is a valid and reliable instrument to measure the usability of CCIS and can be used to study the influence of the usability on their implementation benefits and weaknesses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27259915What 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.