Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorMarcos, Mari Carmenspa
dc.contributor.authorBarahona, Macarena Viventspa
dc.contributor.authorAlonso, Albertspa
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-27T00:20:23Z
dc.date.available2020-10-27T00:20:23Z
dc.date.issued2014-06-01
dc.identifier.issn2539-2115
dc.identifier.issn1657-2831
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12749/8901
dc.description.abstractLa implementación de la tecnología de la información ha tenido un gran impacto en las organizaciones ya que implica un cambio en las prácticas de trabajo de las personas; por lo tanto, es importante gestionar este proceso. Una forma de obtener la aprobación de los involucrados es presentar un producto de calidad, tanto en sus funciones como en su usabilidad (por ejemplo, el producto debe ser fácil de aprender y utilizar, ser útil; el producto tiene que ser intuitivo y sencillo). La medición de la usabilidad en las primeras etapas de desarrollo es necesaria para evitar errores de diseño que se podrían llevar a las siguientes etapas. Resolver estos errores una vez terminada la plataforma es costoso en tiempo y recursos; por lo tanto, es aconsejable realizar evaluaciones desde el principio, incluso cuando solo existe un prototipo. Este estudio propone examinar la viabilidad de la utilización de diversas técnicas de evaluación de la usabilidad en base en un mínimo de recursos y su aplicación a un sistema de salud de Cataluña (en España) en su etapa inicial de desarrollo. En este estudio se aplicaron tres técnicas de evaluación de la usabilidad de una interfaz de usuario que son bien conocidos en el campo de la Ingeniería de usabilidad. Estas técnicas son examinadas en un entorno médico específico: SISBE (Sistema de Información de Salud de Barcelona-Esquerra), una plataforma de integración de registros médicos electrónicos de diferentes proveedores que operan en una gran área urbana de Barcelona. Las técnicas se aplican en el orden siguiente: La evaluación heurística, las personas y pruebas de usuarios. La evaluación heurística se ha adaptado al sistema a evaluar, y la técnica de las personas se ha elaborado teniendo en cuenta los resultados de la técnica anterior. Del mismo modo, la prueba del usuario también ha sido desarrollada de acuerdo con los errores detectados anteriormente. La razón de utilizar tres técnicas es detectar complementariedades y coincidencias, y determinar los puntos fuertes en la evaluación de los sistemas en las primeras etapas de desarrollo . La aplicación de las técnicas mencionadas para evaluar el sistema seleccionado dio resultados consistentes en la identificación de errores de usabilidad. La evaluación heurística permitió la detección de errores en la interfaz. La técnica de las personas detecta errores encontrados previamente en la evaluación heurística y también fue sensible al contexto de uso del sistema. Por último, las pruebas de usuario detectan algunos de los errores que ya se han encontrado, pero, puesto que implica a los usuarios reales en entornos reales, reforzó los resultados observados desde el punto de vista de la interacción humano-computadora.spa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.publisherUniversidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga UNAB
dc.relationhttps://revistas.unab.edu.co/index.php/rcc/article/view/2534/2167
dc.relation.urihttps://revistas.unab.edu.co/index.php/rcc/article/view/2534
dc.rightsDerechos de autor 2014 Revista Colombiana de Computación
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/
dc.sourceRevista Colombiana de Computación; Vol. 15 Núm. 1 (2014): Revista Colombiana de Computación; 7-32
dc.subjectSistemas de registros médicos
dc.subjectEvaluación de Usabilidad
dc.subjectEvaluación Heurística
dc.subjectTécnicas cognitivas
dc.subjectPruebas de Usuarios
dc.titleEnfoque metodológico de la evaluación de la usabilidad costo-afectiva en la etapa inicial de desarrollo de los sistemas de salud electrónica: aplicación a una plataforma integrada de historia clínica electrónicaspa
dc.title.translatedMethodological approach to cost-affective usability evaluation in the initial stage of development of e-Health systems: application to an electronic health record-integrated platformeng
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.localArtículospa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_7a1f
dc.subject.keywordsMedical record systemseng
dc.subject.keywordsUsability evaluationeng
dc.subject.keywordsHeuristic evaluationeng
dc.subject.keywordsCognitive techniqueseng
dc.subject.keywordsUser testingeng
dc.subject.keywordsTechnological innovationseng
dc.subject.keywordsComputer's scienceeng
dc.subject.keywordsTechnological developmenteng
dc.subject.keywordsSystems engineereng
dc.subject.keywordsResearcheng
dc.subject.keywordsTechnology of the information and communicationeng
dc.identifier.instnameinstname:Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga UNABspa
dc.type.hasversionInfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.hasversioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.relation.referencesK. Vredenberg, S. Isensee, C. Righi. User-Centered Design: An Integrated Approach. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001.
dc.relation.referencesJ. Niés, S Pelayo. From users involvement to users' needs understanding: a case study. Int J Med Inform. 2010 Apr; 79(4):e76-82.
dc.relation.referencesK. Háyrinen, K. Saranto, P. Nykánen. Definition, structure, content, use and impacts of electronic health records: A review of the research literature. Int J Med Inform. 2008 May; 77(5):291-304.
dc.relation.referencesI. Scandurra, M. Hágglund, S. Koch. From user needs to system specifications: Multi-disciplinary thematic seminars as a collaborative design method for development of health information systems. J Biomed Inform. 2008 Aug; 4I(4):557-69.
dc.relation.referencesRJ. Lilford 1 , J. Foster, Pringle M. Evaluating eHealth: How to Make Evaluation More Methodologically Robust. PLoS Med 6(11):e1000186.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000186. Available at http://www.plosmed icine.org/art icle/in fo: do i/10.1371/j oumal .p med.1000 I 86. Accessed April 10, 2013.
dc.relation.referencesL. Catwell, A. Sheikh. Evaluating eHealth Interventions: The Need for Continuous Systemic Evaluation. PIoS Med 2009; 6 (8): e1000126.
dc.relation.referencesA. Kushniruk, V. Patel. Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems. J Biomed Inform. 2004 Feb; 37(1):56-76.
dc.relation.referencesA. Joshi, M. Arora, L. Dai, et al. Usability of a patient education and motivation tool using heuristic evaluation. J Med Internet Res. 2009 Nov 6; 11 (4):e47.
dc.relation.referencesC. Sox. Patient-Centered Design of an Information Management Module for a Personally Controlled Health Record. J Med Internet Res. 2010 Jul—Sep; 12(3): e36.
dc.relation.referencesM. Jaspers, L. Peute, A. Lauteslager, et al. Pre-Post Evaluation of Physicians' Satisfaction with a Redesigned Electronic Medical Record System. Stud Health Tech Informat. 2008; 136: 303-308.
dc.relation.referencesM. Jaspers. A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: Methodological aspects and empirical evidence. Int J Med Inform. 2009 May;78(5):340-53.
dc.relation.referencesA. Holbrook, K. Keshavjee, S. Troyan, et al. Applying methodology to electronic medical record selection. Int J Med Inform. Aug 2003; 71(1): 43-50.
dc.relation.referencesM. Beuscart-Zephir, F. Anceaux, V. Crinquette, et al. Integrating users' activity modeling in the design and assessment of hospital electronic patient records: the example of anesthesia. Conference Information: 16th Medical Informatics Europe Congress/45th Annual Congress of the German-Association-for-Medical-Informatics-Biometry-and-Epidemiology, JUN, 2000 Hanover, GERMANY. Int J Med Inform Dec 2001; 64 (2- 3); 157-171.
dc.relation.referencesA. Shachak, S. Reis. The impact of electronic medical records on patient-doctor communication during consultation: a narrative literature review. J Eval C lin Pract. 2009 Aug;15(4):641-9.
dc.relation.referencesD. Nicolson, P. Knapp, P. Gardner, et al. Combining Concurrent and Sequential Methods to Examine the Usability and Readability of Websites With Information About Medicines. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Jan 2011; 5 (1):25-51.
dc.relation.referencesA. Rose, J. Schnipper, E. Park et al. Using qualitative studies to improve the usability of an EMR. J Biomed Inform 2005 Feb; 38(1):51-60.
dc.relation.referencesJ. Nielsen. Heuristic evaluation. Useit.com 2005. Available at http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/ Accessed at April 10, 2013.
dc.relation.referencesM. Beuscart-Zephir, L. Wattled et al. A Rapid Usability Assessment Methodology to Support the Choice of Clinical Information Systems: A Case Study. Proc AMIA Symp. 2002:46-50.
dc.relation.referencesG. Ginsburg. Human factors engineering: A tool for medical device evaluation in hospital procurement decision-making. J Biomed Inform. 2005 Jun; 38(3):213-9. Epub 2004 Dec 8.
dc.relation.referencesZ. Tang, et al. Applying heuristic evaluation to improve the usability of a telemedicine system. Telemed J E Health. 2006 Feb; l2(1):24-34.
dc.relation.referencesT. Thyvalikakath, T. Schleyer et al. Heuristic evaluation of clinical functions in four practice management systems: a pilot study. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138; 209-218.
dc.relation.referencesC. Carvalho, et al. Ensuring the Safety of Health Information Systems: Using Heuristics for Patient Safety. Health Q. 2009; 12 Spec No Patient: 49-54.
dc.relation.referencesS. Hyun. Development and evaluation of nursing user interface screens using multiple methods. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Dec; 42(6):1004-12.
dc.relation.referencesD. Armijo, C. McDonnell, K. Werner. Electronic Health Record Usability: Evaluation and Use Case Framework. AHRQ Publication No. 09(10)-0091-1-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. October 2009. Available at http://healthit.ahrq.gov/portaliserver.pticommunity/ahrq_national resource_center for_health_it/650 . Accessed at May 10, 2013.
dc.relation.referencesJ. Nielsen. Ten Usability Heuristics. Useit.com 2005. Available at http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristici ist. ht ml_ Accessed at May 30, 2013.
dc.relation.referencesY. Hassan, M. Fernandez. Guia de evaluacion heuristica de sitios web. Available at http://www.nosolousabilidad.comfarticulos/ heuristica.htm. Accessed at May 20, 2013.
dc.relation.referencesM. Graham, T. Kubose, et al. Heuristic evaluation of infusion pumps: implications for patient safety in Intensive Care Units. Int J Med Inform. 2004 Nov; 73(11-12):771-9.
dc.relation.referencesM. Hagglund, I. Scandurra, S. Koch. Scenarios to capture work processes in shared homecare—From analysis to application. Int J Med Inform. 2010 Jun; 79(6):e126-34. Epub 2008 Aug 31.
dc.relation.referencesA. Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity. Pearsons Education 2004. Unites States ofAmerica, March 2004.
dc.relation.referencesS. Krug. No me hagas pensar: una aproximacion a la usabilidad en la Web. Prentice Hall, 2001. Madrid.
dc.relation.referencesY. Hassan, M. Fernandez, et al. Metodo de test con usuarios. Available at_http://www.nosolousabilidad.com/articulos/test_ usuarios.htm. Accessed at Jun 5, 2013.
dc.relation.referencesJ. Horsky, K. Mc Colgan, J. Pang, et al. Complementary methods of system usability evaluation: Surveys and observations during software design and development cycles. J Biomed Inform. 2010, Oct; 43 (5): 782-790.
dc.relation.referencesJ. Nielsen. Quantitative Studies: How Many Users to Test? Available at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/quantitati ve_testing.html. Accessed at June 10, 2013.
dc.relation.referencesT. Tullis, B. Albert. Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Morgan Kaufmann, 2008. New York.
dc.relation.referencesA. Bojko. Eye tracking the User Experience. Rosenfeld Media, New York, 2013.
dc.relation.referencesJ. Sauro, J.R. Lewis, Quantifying the User Experience: Practical Statistics for User Research. Morgan Kaufmann, 2012.
dc.relation.referencesT. Greenhalgh, et al. Adoption and non-adoption of a shared electronic summary record in England: a mixed-method case study. BMJ 2010Jun 16; 340:c311 I
dc.relation.referencesJ. Aarts, J Callen, E Coiera, et al. Information technology in health care: Socio-technical approaches. Int J Med Inform. 2010 Jun; 79(6):389-90.
dc.contributor.googlescholarMarcos, Mari Carmen [dOx-JokAAAAJ]spa
dc.contributor.orcidMarcos, Mari Carmen [0000-0002-9576-3830]spa
dc.contributor.orcidAlonso, Albert [0000-0003-0921-8033]spa
dc.subject.lembInnovaciones tecnológicasspa
dc.subject.lembCiencias de la computaciónspa
dc.subject.lembDesarrollo tecnológicospa
dc.subject.lembIngeniería de sistemasspa
dc.subject.lembInvestigacionesspa
dc.subject.lembTecnologías de la información y la comunicaciónspa
dc.identifier.repourlrepourl:https://repository.unab.edu.co
dc.description.abstractenglishThe implementation of information technology has had a great impact on organizations since it implies a change in people's work practices; therefore, it is important to manage this process. One way to obtain the approval of those involved is to present a quality product, both in its functions and in its usability (for example, the product must be easy to learn and use, be useful; the product must be intuitive and simple). . Measurement of usability in the early stages of development is necessary to avoid design errors that could carry over to later stages. Resolving these errors once the platform is finished is costly in terms of time and resources; therefore, it is advisable to carry out evaluations from the beginning, even when only a prototype exists. This study proposes to examine the feasibility of using various usability evaluation techniques based on a minimum of resources and their application to a health system in Catalonia (in Spain) in its initial stage of development. In this study, three user interface usability evaluation techniques that are well known in the field of usability engineering were applied. These techniques are examined in a specific medical environment: SISBE (Barcelona-Esquerra Health Information System), a platform for the integration of electronic medical records from different providers operating in a large urban area of ​​Barcelona. The techniques are applied in the following order: heuristic evaluation, people and user tests. The heuristic evaluation has been adapted to the system to be evaluated, and the people technique has been elaborated taking into account the results of the previous technique. In the same way, the user test has also been developed according to the previously detected errors. The reason for using three techniques is to detect complementarities and coincidences, and to determine the strengths in the evaluation of systems in the early stages of development. The application of the techniques mentioned to evaluate the selected system gave consistent results in the identification of usability errors. The heuristic evaluation allowed the detection of errors in the interface. The people technique detects errors previously found in the heuristic evaluation and was also sensitive to the context of use of the system. Finally, the user tests caught some of the bugs that have already been found, but since it involves real users in real environments, it strengthened the observed results from a human-computer interaction point of view.eng
dc.subject.proposalSistemas de registros médicospa
dc.subject.proposalEvaluación de usabilidadspa
dc.subject.proposalEvaluación heurísticaspa
dc.subject.proposalTécnicas cognitivasspa
dc.subject.proposalPruebas de usuariosspa
dc.identifier.doi10.29375/25392115.2534
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/CJournalArticle
dc.rights.creativecommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International*


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International