The digital pen and paper: Evaluation and acceptance of a new data acquisition device in clinical settings

Methods of Information in Medicine

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 359-368

  Despont Gros, Christelle ^a,b   Landau, R ^a   Rutschmann, O ^a   Simon, J ^a   Lovis, C ^a  

^a GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

^b NONE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Acceptance; Cognitive impact; Data acquisition; Digital pen; Human machine interface; Usability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COGNITION; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; DIGITAL COMPUTER; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; EXERCISE TEST; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; PAPER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; WORKLOAD;

EID: 22944465052     PISSN: 00261270     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1633978     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Payne TH. The transition to automated practitioner order entry in a teaching hospital: the VA Puget Sound experience. In: Proc AMIA Annual Symposium 1999; pp 589-93.
2. Ball MJ. Better Health Through Informatics: Managing Information to Deliver Value. In: Ward ME, editor. Public Health Informatics and Information Systems. Springer Verlag; 2002.
3. Lorenzi NM, Riley RT. Managing change: an overview. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000; 7 (2): 116-24.
4. Anderson JG, Aydin CE, Jay SJ. Evaluating Health Care Information Systems - Methods and Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.
5. Hewett TT, Baecker R, Card S, Carey T, Gasen J, Mantei M, et al. ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction. In: The Association for Computing Machinery; 1996.
6. Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H, Benyon D, Holland S, Carey T. Human-computer interaction. Harlow: Addison-Wesley; 1994.
7. Hewett, Baecker, Card, Carey, Gasen, Mantei, et al. ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction. In: The Association for Computing Machinery; 1996.
8. Despont-Gros C, Fabry P, Muller H, Geissbuhler H, Lovis C. User acceptance of Clinical Information Systems: A methodological approach to identify the key dimensions allowing a reliable evaluation framework. In: MedInfo 2004; San Francisco 2004 (in press).
9. Mahmood MA, Burn JM, Gemoets LA, Jacquez C. Variables affecting information technology end-user satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 2000; 52 (4): 751-71.
10. Doll WJ, Torkzadeh G. The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. MIS-Quarterly 1991; 15: 5-10.
11. Chin WW, Lee MKO. A proposed model and measurement instrument for the formation of IS satisfaction: the case of end-user computing satisfaction. In: 21st International Conference on Information Systems; Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 2000; pp. 553-63.
12. Garrity EJ, Sanders GL. Dimensions of Information Systems Success. In: Garrity EJ, Sanders GL, editors. Information systems success measurement. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ; 1998. pp 12-45.
13. Heeks R, Mundy D, Salazar A. Why Health Care Information Systems Succeed or Fail. Working Paper Series, Paper No 9, 1999.
14. DeLone WH, McLean ER. Information Systems Success Revisited. In: 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'02); 2002; Big Island, Hawaii: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc; 2002. pp 238-48.
15. Seddon PB, Staples S, Patnayakuni R, Bowtell M. Dimensions of Information Systems Success. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 1999; 2.
16. Bailey JE, Pearson SW. Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction. Management Science 1983; 29 (5): 530-45.
17. Ives B, Olson MH, Baroudi JL. The measurement of user information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM 1983; 26 (10): 785-93.
18. Baroudi JJ, Orlikowski WJ. A Short-Form Measure of User Information Satisfaction: A Psychometric Evaluation and Notes on Use. Journal of Management Information Systems 1988; 4 (4): 44-59.