ArticleJMIR human factors2022
Usage and Usability of a National e-Library for Chemotherapy Regimens: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate information about chemotherapy drugs and regimens is needed to reduce chemotherapy errors. A national e-library, as a common knowledge source with standardized chemotherapy nomenclature and content, was developed. Since the information in the library is both complex and extensive, it is central that the users can use the resource as intended.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the usage and usability of an extensive e-library for chemotherapy regimens developed to reduce medication errors, support the health care staff in their work, and increase patient safety.
methodsTo obtain a comprehensive evaluation, a mixed methods study was performed for a broad view of the usage, including a compilation of subjective views of the users (web survey, spontaneous user feedback, and qualitative interviews), analysis of statistics from the website, and an expert evaluation of the usability of the webpage.
resultsStatistics from the website show an average of just over 2500 visits and 870 unique visitors per month. Most visits took place Mondays to Fridays, but there were 5-10 visits per day on weekends. The web survey, with 292 answers, shows that the visitors were mainly physicians and nurses. Almost 80% (224/292) of respondents searched for regimens and 90% (264/292) found what they were looking for and were satisfied with their visit. The expert evaluation shows that the e-library follows many existing design principles, thus providing some useful improvement suggestions. A total of 86 emails were received in 2020 with user feedback, most of which were from nurses. The main part (78%, 67/86) contained a question, and the rest had discovered errors mainly in some regimen. The interviews reveal that most hospitals use a computerized physician order entry system, and they use the e-library in various ways, import XML files, transfer information, or use it as a reference. One hospital without a system uses the administration schedules from the library.
conclusionsThe user evaluation indicates that the e-library is used in the intended manner and that the users can interact without problems. Users have different needs depending on their profession and their workplace, and these can be supported. The combination of methods applied ensures that the design and content comply with the users' needs and serves as feedback for continuous design and learning. With a broad national usage, the e-library can become a source for organizational and national learning and a source for continuous improvement of cancer care in Sweden.
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.