Search

Providing patients with specific information about their own drugs can reduce unintentional misuse and improve compliance. Searching for information is time-consuming when information is not personalized and is written using medical vocabulary that is difficult for patients to understand. In this study we explored patient information needs regarding visualizing of drug information and interrelationships by conducting a total of four co-design workshops with patients, other users and pharmacists. We developed a prototype and drug ontology to support reasoning about drug interactions. We evaluated individual performance in finding information, understanding the drug interactions, and learning from the provided information in the prototype compared to using patient information leaflets (PILs). We concluded that interactive visualization of drug information helps individuals find information about drugs, their side effects and interactions more quickly and correctly compared to using PILs. Our study is limited to co-morbid patients with transient ischaemic attack with several chronic diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To facilitate the clinical guideline (GL) development process, different groups of researchers have proposed tools that enable computer-supported tools for authoring and publishing GLs. In a previous study we interviewed GL authors in different Norwegian institutions and identified tool shortcomings. In this follow-up study our goal is to explore to what extent GL authoring tools have been evaluated by researchers, guideline organisations, or GL authors. This article presents results from a systematic literature review of evaluation (including usability) of GL authoring tools. A controlled database search and backward snow-balling were used to identify relevant articles. From the 12692 abstracts found, 188 papers were fully reviewed and 26 papers were identified as relevant. The GRADEPro tool has attracted some evaluation, however popular tools and platforms such as DECIDE, Doctor Evidence, JBI-SUMARI, G-I-N library have not been subject to specific evaluation from an authoring perspective. Therefore, we found that little attention was paid to the evaluation of the tools in general. We could not find any evaluation relevant to how tools integrate and support the complex GL development workflow. The results of this paper are highly relevant to GL authors, tool developers and GL publishing organisations in order to improve and control the GL development and maintenance process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Publishing clinical guidelines (GLs) on the web increases their accessibility. However, evaluating their usability and understanding how users interact with the websites has been neglected. In this study we used Tobii eyetracker to analyse users' interaction with five commercial and public GL sites popular in Norway (four in Norwegian and one English of US origin (UpToDate)). We measured number of clicks and usage rate for search functions, task completion time, users' objective and perception of task success rate. We also measured learning effect for inexperienced users. We found a direct correlation between participant's satisfaction regarding website usability and the time spent, number of mouse clicks and use of search function to obtain the desired results. Our study showed that users' perceived success rate was not reliable and GL publishers should evaluate their website regarding presentation format, layout, navigation bar and search function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical guidelines are made to aid diagnosis, management and treatment of patients. Authoring, publishing, updating and maintaining clinical guidelines are time-consuming, labour-intensive and complex. Unfortunately, it is time-consuming to search and retrieve patient-specific recommendations in freetext documents. Literature is rich with methods proposed to support encoding of clinical guidelines into computer-interpretable formats (CIG). However, there is a lack of studies covering the actual guideline development and authoring. So, the objective of this research is to explore gap between tools and methods for authoring guideline content and for designing and implementing computerinterpretable guidelines. Towards this objective, we have performed a user requirements analysis to arrive at a set of design recommendations. The resulting functionality framework can be used to design and develop authoring tools for the entire life-cycle of the computerized clinical guideline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Representation of clinical guidelines in a computer interpretable format is an active area of research. Various methods and tools have been proposed which have been evaluated based on different evaluation criteria. The evaluation results in the literature and their lessons learnt can be a valuable learning resource in order to redesign and improve the tools. Therefore, this research investigates the lessons learnt from the evaluation studies. Broad search in literature together with a purposeful snowball method were performed to identify the related papers that report any type of evaluation or comparison. We reviewed and analysed the lessons learnt from the evaluation results and classified them into 17 themes which reflect the suggestion concerns. The results indicate that the lessons learnt are more focused on tool functionalities, integration, sharing and maintenance domain. We provide suggestions for the area which had less attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are a variety of authoring tools and methods for producing computer-interpretable clinical guideline (CIG). This work is a review of the evaluation of tools and methods currently in use to author CIGs. The aim of this paper is to present the results of a literature review on the evaluation criteria. Both controlled database search and a subsequent snowballing were used to identify relevant literature. The evaluation criteria and evaluation methods of CIG-related themes were manually identified in the found literature. Based on the 32 relevant papers found, 68 evaluation criteria were identified which were then classified into ten themes. We identified the most and least frequently mentioned areas of concern in evaluation which indicate areas that have been neglected in system evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]