300 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31733603)
21. Physicians' Perspectives on EHR Usability: Results from Four Large Cross-Sectional Surveys from 2010 to 2021.
Lääveri T; Viitanen J
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2023 Jun; 304():16-20. PubMed ID: 37347562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Usability Assessment of the Missouri Cancer Registry's Published Interactive Mapping Reports: Round One.
Ben Ramadan AA; Jackson-Thompson J; Schmaltz CL
JMIR Hum Factors; 2017 Aug; 4(3):e19. PubMed ID: 28778842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Evaluating the agreement of users with usability problems identified by heuristic evaluation.
Khajouei R; Ameri A; Jahani Y
Int J Med Inform; 2018 Sep; 117():13-18. PubMed ID: 30032960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. [Evaluation of usability of an e-learning software in healthcare].
Argentero P; Mazzoleni MC; Presciutti MB; Giorgi I
G Ital Med Lav Ergon; 2009; 31(1 Suppl A):A45-51. PubMed ID: 19621538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Integrating Key User Characteristics in User-Centered Design of Digital Support Systems for Seniors' Physical Activity Interventions to Prevent Falls: Protocol for a Usability Study.
Revenäs Å; Johansson AC; Ehn M
JMIR Res Protoc; 2020 Dec; 9(12):e20061. PubMed ID: 33346732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Evaluation Methods for Assessing Users' Psychological Experiences of Web-Based Psychosocial Interventions: A Systematic Review.
Feather JS; Howson M; Ritchie L; Carter PD; Parry DT; Koziol-McLain J
J Med Internet Res; 2016 Jun; 18(6):e181. PubMed ID: 27363519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. National questionnaire study on clinical ICT systems proofs: physicians suffer from poor usability.
Viitanen J; Hyppönen H; Lääveri T; Vänskä J; Reponen J; Winblad I
Int J Med Inform; 2011 Oct; 80(10):708-25. PubMed ID: 21784701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. End-Users' Voice in EHR Selection: Development of a Usability Questionnaire for Demonstrations in Procurement (DPUQ).
Tyllinen M; Kaipio J; Lääveri T; Nieminen M
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2017; 234():346-351. PubMed ID: 28186066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Success or failure of hospital information systems of public hospitals affiliated with Zahedan University of Medical Sciences: A cross sectional study in the Southeast of Iran.
Alipour J; Karimi A; Ebrahimi S; Ansari F; Mehdipour Y
Int J Med Inform; 2017 Dec; 108():49-54. PubMed ID: 29132631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Evaluating the usability of speech recognition to create clinical documentation using a commercial electronic health record.
Hodgson T; Magrabi F; Coiera E
Int J Med Inform; 2018 May; 113():38-42. PubMed ID: 29602431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Mobile health application for Thai women: investigation and model.
Kongjit C; Nimmolrat A; Khamaksorn A
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2022 Jul; 22(1):202. PubMed ID: 35907950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Multi-method laboratory user evaluation of an actionable clinical performance information system: Implications for usability and patient safety.
Brown B; Balatsoukas P; Williams R; Sperrin M; Buchan I
J Biomed Inform; 2018 Jan; 77():62-80. PubMed ID: 29146562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. EVALUATION OF USABILITY OF A NEONATAL HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEM ACCORDING TO THE USER'S PERCEPTION.
Padrini-Andrade L; Balda RCX; Areco KCN; Bandiera-Paiva P; Nunes MDV; Marba STM; Carvalho WB; Rugolo LMSS; Almeida JHC; Procianoy RS; Duarte JLMB; Rego MAS; Ferreira DMLM; Alves Filho N; Guinsburg R; Diniz EMA; Santos JPFD; Testoni D; Silva NMME; Gonzales MRC; Silva RVCD; Meneses J; Gonçalves-Ferri WA; Perussi-E-Silva R; Bomfim O
Rev Paul Pediatr; 2019; 37(1):90-96. PubMed ID: 30569950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Determining the Effect of the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) on Different Dimensions of Users' Work.
Montazeri M; Khajouei R
Radiol Res Pract; 2022; 2022():4306714. PubMed ID: 35265375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Task-specific usability requirements of electronic medical records systems: Lessons learned from a national survey of end-users.
Farzandipour M; Meidani Z; Riazi H; Sadeqi Jabali M
Inform Health Soc Care; 2018 Sep; 43(3):280-299. PubMed ID: 28398097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Investigating users' requirements: computer-based anatomy learning modules for multiple user test beds.
Walker DS; Lee WY; Skov NM; Berger CF; Athley BD
J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2002; 9(4):311-9. PubMed ID: 12087112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The impact of users' cognitive function on evaluator perceptions of usability.
Martins AI; Silva AG; Pais J; Cruz VT; Rocha NP
Sci Rep; 2022 Aug; 12(1):13753. PubMed ID: 35962003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Data management system for diabetes clinical trials: a pre-post evaluation study.
Nourani A; Ayatollahi H; Solaymani-Dodaran M
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2023 Jan; 23(1):14. PubMed ID: 36670481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. A novel concept for integrating and delivering health information using a comprehensive digital dashboard: An analysis of healthcare professionals' intention to adopt a new system and the trend of its real usage.
Lee K; Jung SY; Hwang H; Yoo S; Baek HY; Baek RM; Kim S
Int J Med Inform; 2017 Jan; 97():98-108. PubMed ID: 27919400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Comparison of heuristic and cognitive walkthrough usability evaluation methods for evaluating health information systems.
Khajouei R; Zahiri Esfahani M; Jahani Y
J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2017 Apr; 24(e1):e55-e60. PubMed ID: 27497799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
