Usage and Usability of a National e-Library for Chemotherapy Regimens: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate 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. OBJECTIVE: The 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. METHODS: To 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. RESULTS: Statistics 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
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 | 0.031 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".