Volume 25, Issue 2 (7-2022)
jha 2022, 25(2): 78-94 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Alinejad A, Nourani A, Jebraeily M. Usability evaluation of the user interface in electronic prescribing systems of Iran Health Insurance Organization and Social Security Organization. jha 2022; 25 (2) :78-94
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-4134-en.html
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-4134-en.html
1- M.Sc Student, Department of Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia
3- Associate Professor, Department of Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia , jabraeili.m@umsu.ac.ir
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia
3- Associate Professor, Department of Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia , jabraeili.m@umsu.ac.ir
Abstract: (1294 Views)
Introduction: The e-prescribing system is one of the basic technologies in the health system structure which was developed with the aim of properly managing healthcare resources and services, preventing common manual prescribing errors, and increasing patient safety. Given that the user interface of e-prescribing system is considered as the main factor of user acceptance, the purpose of the present study was to evaluate the user interface usability of the e-prescribing systems of Iran Health Insurance Organization (IHIO) and Social Security Organization (SSO) in Iran.
Methods: This descriptive-cross-sectional study was conducted in 2022. The research sample consisted of 150 physicians working in educational-therapeutic centers of Urmia University of Medical Sciences who were selected through stratified sampling with proportional allocation. The data collection tool was a researcher-made questionnaire The validity and reliability o f which were verified. The data were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics and independent t-test using SPSS software.
Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the user interface SSO and IHIO in general (terms, letters, icons and navigation) and specific (alert display, personalization, entering and displaying information, guidance and interactions) areas. However, there was a statistically significant difference in "color" (P=0.047) and "visibility" (P=0.049).
Conclusion: The user interface of two e-prescribing systems in Iran has an average status in terms of usability. Therefore, it seems necessary for system developers to use aesthetic elements, interaction in the user's language, presentation of useful information in a simple and clear format in the design of the user interface according to the principles of human-computer interaction.
Methods: This descriptive-cross-sectional study was conducted in 2022. The research sample consisted of 150 physicians working in educational-therapeutic centers of Urmia University of Medical Sciences who were selected through stratified sampling with proportional allocation. The data collection tool was a researcher-made questionnaire The validity and reliability o f which were verified. The data were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics and independent t-test using SPSS software.
Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the user interface SSO and IHIO in general (terms, letters, icons and navigation) and specific (alert display, personalization, entering and displaying information, guidance and interactions) areas. However, there was a statistically significant difference in "color" (P=0.047) and "visibility" (P=0.049).
Conclusion: The user interface of two e-prescribing systems in Iran has an average status in terms of usability. Therefore, it seems necessary for system developers to use aesthetic elements, interaction in the user's language, presentation of useful information in a simple and clear format in the design of the user interface according to the principles of human-computer interaction.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Health Information Management
Received: 2022/03/22 | Accepted: 2022/06/21 | Published: 2022/12/11
Received: 2022/03/22 | Accepted: 2022/06/21 | Published: 2022/12/11
References
1. Esmaeil Zadeh P, Chiarini Tremblay M. A review of the literature and proposed classification on E-prescribing: Functions, assimilation stages, benefits, concerns, and risks. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2016;12(1):1-19. [DOI:10.1016/j.sapharm.2015.03.001]
2. Kannry J. Effect of e‐prescribing systems on patient safety. Mt Sinai J Med. 2011;78(6):827-33. [DOI:10.1002/msj.20298]
3. Taheri Moghadam Sh, Sadoughi F, Velayati F, Ehsanzadeh J, Poursharif Sh. The effects of clinical decision support system for prescribing medication on patient outcomes and physician practice performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021;21(1):1-26. [DOI:10.1186/s12911-020-01376-8]
4. Parv L, Kruus P, Motte K, Ross P. An evaluation of e-prescribing at a national level. Inform Health Soc Care. 2016;41(1):78-95. [DOI:10.3109/17538157.2014.948170]
5. Odukoya OK, Schleiden LJ, Chui MA. The hidden role of community pharmacy technicians in ensuring patient safety with the use of e-prescribing. Pharmacy. 2015;3(4):330-43. [DOI:10.3390/pharmacy3040330]
6. Fischer SH, Rudin RS, Shi Y, Shekelle P, Amill-Rosario A, Scanlon D, et al. Trends in the use of computerized physician order entry by health-system affiliated ambulatory clinics in the United States, 2014-2016. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):1-6. [DOI:10.1186/s12913-020-05679-4]
7. Cresswell KM, Lee L, Slee A, Coleman J, Bates DW, Sheikh A. Qualitative analysis of vendor discussions on the procurement of computerised physician order entry and clinical decision support systems in hospitals. BMJ Open. 2015;5(10):1-10. [DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008313]
8. Gall W, Aly A-F, Sojer R, Spahni S, Ammenwerth E. The national e-medication approaches in Germany, Switzerland and Austria: A structured comparison. Int J Med Inform. 2016;93:14-25. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.05.009]
9. Chang H-Y, Kan HJ, Shermock KM, Alexander GC, Weiner JP, Kharrazi H. Integrating e-prescribing and pharmacy claims data for predictive modeling: Comparing costs and utilization of health plan members who fill their initial medications with those who do not. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2020;26(10):1282-90. [DOI:10.18553/jmcp.2020.26.10.1282]
10. Raeesi A, Abbasi R, Khajouei R. Evaluating physicians' perspectives on the efficiency and effectiveness of the electronic prescribing system. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2021;37(1):1-7. [DOI:10.1017/S0266462321000052]
11. Jebraeily M, Rashidi A, Mohit Mafi T, Mosazadeh R. Evaluation of outpatient electronic prescription system capabilities from the perspective of physicians in specialized polyclinics of Urmia social security organization. Payavard Salamat. 2021;14(6):557-68. [In Persian]
12. Peikari HR, Shah MH, Zakaria MS, Yasin NM, Elhissi A. The impacts of second generation e-prescribing usability on community pharmacists outcomes. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2015;11(3):339-51. [DOI:10.1016/j.sapharm.2014.08.011]
13. Wager KA, Lee FW, Glaser JP. Managing health care information systems: A practical approach for health care executives. United States of America: Jossey-Bass; 2005.
14. Alshahrani F, Marriott JF, Cox AR. A qualitative study of prescribing errors among multi-professional prescribers within an e-prescribing system. Int J Clin Pharm. 2021;43(4):884-92. [DOI:10.1007/s11096-020-01192-0]
15. Elsaid KA, Garguilo S, Collins CM. Chemotherapy e-prescribing: Opportunities and challenges. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2015;4:39-48. [DOI:10.2147/IPRP.S84232]
16. Shah MH, Peikari HR. Electronic prescribing usability: Reduction of mental workload and prescribing errors among community physicians. Telemed J E Health. 2016;22(1):36-44. [DOI:10.1089/tmj.2014.0246]
17. Shneiderman B, Plaisant C, Cohen M, Jacobs S, Elmqvist N, Diakopoulos N. Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson; 2016.
18. Bodker S. Through the interface: A human activity approach to user interface design. England: Taylor & Francis; 1991. 192 p. Report No.: DAIMI PB-224.
19. Franklin SS, Sridaran R. Making human-computer interaction usable: Thinking from healthcare perspective. Int J Comput Appl. 2012;58(1):34-40. [DOI:10.5120/9249-3413]
20. Randhawa GK, Garnett A, Huang S, Dhot P, Fyfe M-L. Evidence-based usability principles for safe computerized provider order entry (CPOE) interface design. In: Ohno-Machado L, Seroussi B, editors. MEDINFO 2019: Health and wellbeing e-networks for all. IOS Press; 2019. p. 1947-8.
21. Kruse CS, Goetz K. Summary and frequency of barriers to adoption of CPOE in the US. J Med Syst. 2015;39(2):1-5. [DOI:10.1007/s10916-015-0198-2]
22. Yuan MJ, Finley GM, Long J, Mills C, Johnson RK. Evaluation of user interface and workflow design of a bedside nursing clinical decision support system. Interact J Med Res. 2013;2(1):1-15. [DOI:10.2196/ijmr.2402]
23. Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Machan C, Siebert U. The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15(5):585-600. [DOI:10.1197/jamia.M2667]
24. Chan J, Shojania KG, Easty AC, Etchells EE. Does user-centred design affect the efficiency, usability and safety of CPOE order sets? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(3):276-81. [DOI:10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000026]
25. Kim GR, Chen AR, Arceci RJ, Mitchell SH, Kokoszka KM, Daniel D, et al. Error reduction in pediatric chemotherapy: Computerized order entry and failure modes and effects analysis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(5):495-8. [DOI:10.1001/archpedi.160.5.495]
26. Byrne CM, Mercincavage LM, Pan EC, Vincent AG, Johnston DS, Middleton B. The value from investments in health information technology at the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Health Aff. 2010;29(4):629-38. [DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0119]
27. Guo J, Iribarren S, Kapsandoy S, Perri S, Staggers N. Usability evaluation of an electronic medication administration record (EMAR) application. Appl Clin Inform. 2011;2(2):202-24. [DOI:10.4338/ACI-2011-01-RA-0004]
28. Zheng H, Rosal MC, Li W, Borg A, Yang W, Ayers DC, et al. A web-based treatment decision support tool for patients with advanced knee arthritis: Evaluation of user interface and content design. JMIR Hum Factors. 2018;5(2):1-9. [DOI:10.2196/humanfactors.8568]
29. Gіder O, Ocak S, Top M. Evaluation of electronic prescription implications in turkey: An investigation of the perceptions of physicians. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2015;12(2):88-97. [DOI:10.1111/wvn.12082]
30. Fumis RRL, Costa ELV, Martins PS, Pizzo V, Souza IA, Schettino GPP. Is the ICU staff satisfied with the computerized physician order entry? A cross-sectional survey study. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2014;26(1):1-6. [DOI:10.5935/0103-507X.20140001]
31. Alnanih R, Ormandjieva O. Mapping HCI principles to design quality of mobile user interfaces in healthcare applications. Procedia Comput Sci. 2016;94:75-82. [DOI:10.1016/j.procs.2016.08.014]
32. Bundschuh BB, Majeed RW, Burkle T, Kuhn K, Sax U, Seggewies C, et al. Quality of human-computer interaction-results of a national usability survey of hospital-IT in Germany. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11(1):1-12. [DOI:10.1186/1472-6947-11-69]
33. Horsky J, Phansalkar S, Desai A, Bell D, Middleton B. Design of decision support interventions for medication prescribing. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82(6):492-503. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.02.003]
34. Horsky J, Schiff GD, Johnston D, Mercincavage L, Bell D, Middleton B. Interface design principles for usable decision support: A targeted review of best practices for clinical prescribing interventions. J Biomed Inform. 2012;45(6):1202-16. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbi.2012.09.002]
35. Schadow G, Fleck C, Nalkande M, Sangawar A, Rosenthal C, Carlson M, et al. Value of new drug knowledge for e-prescribing. United state: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 7p. Report No.: R01HS15377.
36. Merlin B, Chazard E, Pereira S, Serrot E, Sakji S, Beuscart R, et al. Can F-MTI semantic-mined drug codes be used for adverse drug events detection when no CPOE is available? In: Safran C, Reti S, Marin HF, editors. MEDINFO 2010. IOS Press; 2010. p. 1025-9.
37. Khajouei R, Jaspers MWM. The impact of CPOE medication systems' design aspects on usability, workflow and medication orders: A systematic review. Methods Inf Med. 2010;49(1):3-19. [DOI:10.3414/ME0630]
38. Saathoff A. Human factors considerations relevant to CPOE implementations. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2005;19(3):71-8.
39. Khajouei R, Jaspers MW. CPOE system design aspects and their qualitative effect on usability. In: Andersen SK, Klein GO, Schulz S, Aarts J, Mazzoleni MC, editors. eHealth Beyond the Horizon - Get IT There. IOS Press;2008. p. 319-14.
40. Miller RA, Waitman LR, Chen S, Rosenbloom ST. The anatomy of decision support during inpatient care provider order entry (CPOE): Empirical observations from a decade of CPOE experience at vanderbilt. J Biomed Inform. 2005;38(6):469-85. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbi.2005.08.009]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Site Keywords
Health, Administration, Scientific Article, Iran University of Medical Sciences,
