Human Factors in the Large: Experiences from Denmark, Finland and Canada in Moving Towards Regional and National Evaluations of Health Information System Usability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this paper is to explore approaches to understanding the usability of health information systems at regional and national levels. METHODS: Several different methods are discussed in case studies from Denmark, Finland and Canada. They range from small scale qualitative studies involving usability testing of systems to larger scale national level questionnaire studies aimed at assessing the use and usability of health information systems by entire groups of health professionals. RESULTS: It was found that regional and national usability studies can complement smaller scale usability studies, and that they are needed in order to understand larger trends regarding system usability. Despite adoption of EHRs, many health professionals rate the usability of the systems as low. A range of usability issues have been noted when data is collected on a large scale through use of widely distributed questionnaires and websites designed to monitor user perceptions of usability. CONCLUSION: As health information systems are deployed on a widespread basis, studies that examine systems used regionally or nationally are required. In addition, collection of large scale data on the usability of specific IT products is needed in order to complement smaller scale studies of specific systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".