LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,149
تعداد مقالات10,518
تعداد مشاهده مقاله45,419,817
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله11,296,170
Zakerabasali, Somayyeh, Sharifian, Roxana. (1400). Usability Evaluation of Laboratory Information System by the Model of Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use (USE). سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 8(2), 90-97. doi: 10.30476/jhmi.2021.90101.1074
Somayyeh Zakerabasali; Roxana Sharifian. "Usability Evaluation of Laboratory Information System by the Model of Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use (USE)". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 8, 2, 1400, 90-97. doi: 10.30476/jhmi.2021.90101.1074
Zakerabasali, Somayyeh, Sharifian, Roxana. (1400). 'Usability Evaluation of Laboratory Information System by the Model of Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use (USE)', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 8(2), pp. 90-97. doi: 10.30476/jhmi.2021.90101.1074
Zakerabasali, Somayyeh, Sharifian, Roxana. Usability Evaluation of Laboratory Information System by the Model of Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use (USE). سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1400; 8(2): 90-97. doi: 10.30476/jhmi.2021.90101.1074

Usability Evaluation of Laboratory Information System by the Model of Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use (USE)

Health Management & Information Science
مقاله 2، دوره 8، شماره 2، تیر 2021، صفحه 90-97    اصل مقاله (651.26 K)
نوع مقاله: Original Article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/jhmi.2021.90101.1074
نویسندگان
Somayyeh Zakerabasali1؛ Roxana Sharifian* 2
1Assistance Professor of Medical Informatics, Department of Health Information Management, Health Human Resources Research Center, School of Management & Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2Associate Professor of Health Information Management, Department of Health Information Management, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Health Human Resources Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
چکیده
Introduction: Laboratory information system (LIS) is one of the key components of
healthcare information system (HIS). It can help the healthcare providers to delivery faster,
easier, and more efficient healthcare services. Acceptance and success of LISs depend on the
appropriate designs of user interface of these systems. Therefore, this study was conducted
aiming to focus on the end-user usability evaluation of LIS.
Methods: This is a descriptive cross-sectional study. It was conducted on the LIS embedded
into a HIS used in Faghihi Hospital affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Science, Iran.
The target population was all of 80 pathologists and laboratory technicians of this hospital
who worked with LIS. We used the questionnaire of Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use
(USE) to evaluate the LIS. The descriptive data were analyzed using SPSS22; the reliability and
validity of the measures and model were determined using Smart-PLS version 3 with Partial
Least Squares.
Results: The result of all the constructs with regard to USEQ model demonstrated a
positive effect of “Usefulness” (t-value=2.08), “Satisfaction” (t-value=1.89) and “Ease of use”
(t-value=5.05) on the usability of the LIS.
Conclusion: The USEQ model proposed was a valid and reliable instrument and could
be used by researchers. The LIS was usable, and end-users could interact with this system
without any effort. Therefore, healthcare professionals can perform their tasks better with this
system and make appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic decisions for their patients.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Laboratory information system؛ LIS؛ Usability؛ Evaluation؛ USEQ Model
مراجع
1. Santoso HB, Nisa AK, Fitriansyah R. Usability evaluation of the Hospital Management Information System: Case study of an
emergency installation application of a regional public hospital. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol. 2017;7(6):2294-301. doi: 10.18517/ijaseit.7.6.2269.
2. Moghaddasi H, Rabiei R, Asadi F, Ostvan N. Evaluation of Nursing Information Systems: Application of Usability Aspects in the
Development of Systems. Healthc Inform Res. 2017;23(2):101-8. doi: 10.4258/hir.2017.23.2.101.
3. Mathews A, Marc D. Usability Evaluation of Laboratory Information Systems. J Pathol Inform. 2017;8:40. doi: 10.4103/jpi.jpi_24_17.
4. Cassino R, Tucci M, Vitiello G, Francese R. Empirical validation of an automatic usability evaluation method. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing. 2015;28:1-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jvlc.2014.12.002.
5. Paz F, Pow-Sang JA. A systematic mapping review of usability evaluation methods for software development process. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications. 2016;10(1):165-78. doi: 10.14257/ ijseia.2016.10.1.16.

6. Ahmadian L, Khajouei R, Nejad SS, Ebrahimzadeh M, Nikkar SE. Prioritizing barriers to successful implementation of hospital information systems. J Med Syst. 2014;38(12):151. doi: 10.1007/s10916-014-0151-9.
7. Ravangard R, Kazemi Z, Abbasali SZ, Sharifian R,Monem H. Development of the UTAUT2 modelto measure the acceptance of medical laboratory portals by patients in Shiraz. Electron Physician. 2017;9(2):3862-9. doi: 10.19082/3862.
8. Jeddi FR, Nabovati E, Bigham R, Farrahi R. Usability evaluation of a comprehensive national health information system: A heuristic evaluation. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked. 2020;19:100332. doi: 10.1016/j.imu.2020.100332.
9. Khajouei R, Hajesmaeel Gohari S, Mirzaee M. Comparison of two heuristic evaluation methods for evaluating the usability of health information systems. J Biomed Inform. 2018;80:37-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2018.02.016.
10. Hudson D, Kushniruk A, Borycki E, Zuege DJ. Physician satisfaction with a critical care clinical information system using a
multimethod evaluation of usability. Int J Med Inform. 2018;112:131-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.01.010.
11. Khajouei R, Farahani F. A combination of two methods for evaluating the usability of a hospital information system. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020;20(1):84. doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-1083-6.
12. Standard I. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (vdts)–part 11: Guidance on usability. ISO Standard 9241-11: 1998. International Organization for Standardization. 1998:55.
13. Abran A, Khelifi A, Suryn W, Seffah A. Usability meanings and interpretations in ISO standards. Software quality journal. 2003;11(4):325-38. doi: 10.1023/a:1025869312943.
14. Shanbe Zadeh M, Jamshidian M, Yousefian O, Kazemi H. Evaluating the Usability of Hospital Information Systems Based on ISO 9241-10 Standard: A Cross-Sectional Study. Applied Health Information Technology. 2021;2(1):20-9. doi: 10.18502/ahit.v1i2.6165.
15. Unrau R, Kray C. Usability evaluation for geographic information systems: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 2019;33(4):645-65. doi: 10.1080/13658816.2018.1554813.

16. Rabiei R, Moghaddasi H, Asadi F, Heydari M. Evaluation of computerized provider order entry systems: assessing the usability of systems for electronic prescription. Electron Physician. 2018;10(8):7196-204. doi: 10.19082/7196.
17. Yen PY, Walker DM, Smith JMG, Zhou MP, Menser TL, McAlearney AS. Usability evaluation of a commercial inpatient portal. Int J Med Inform. 2018;110:10-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.11.007.
18. Bhutkar G, Konkani A, Katre D, Ray GG. A review: healthcare usability evaluation methods. Biomed Instrum Technol. 2013;Suppl:45-53. doi: 10.2345/0899-8205-47.s2.45.
19. D’Costa S, Sinha RK. Usability assessment of hospital information system integrated electronic medical record. Online Journal of Health and Allied Sciences. 2018;17(3):5.
20. Ahmadi M, Shahmoradi L, Barabadi M, Hoseini A. A survey of usability of hospital information systems from the perspective of nurses, department secretaries, and paraclinic users in selected hospitals: 2009. Journal of Health Administration (JHA). 2011;14(44):11-20.
21. Rizvi RF, Marquard JL, Hultman GM, Adam TJ, Harder KA, Melton GB. Usability Evaluation of Electronic Health Record System around Clinical Notes Usage-An Ethnographic Study. Appl Clin Inform. 2017;8(4):1095-105. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2017-04-RA-0067.
22. Viitanen J, Kuusisto A, Nykanen P. Usability of electronic nursing record systems: definition and results from an evaluation study in Finland. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;164:333-8.
23. Farzandipour M, Nabovati E, Zaeimi GH, Khajouei R. Usability Evaluation of Three Admission and Medical Records Subsystems Integrated into Nationwide Hospital Information Systems: Heuristic Evaluation. Acta Inform Med.
2018;26(2):133-8. doi: 10.5455/aim.2018.26.133-138.
24. Ebnehoseini Z, Tara M, Meraji M, Deldar K, Khoshronezhad F, Khoshronezhad S. Usability Evaluation of an Admission, Discharge, and Transfer Information System: A Heuristic Evaluation. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018;6(11):1941-5. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2018.392.
25. Ghalibaf AK, Jangi M, Habibi MRM, Zangouei S, Khajouei R. Usability evaluation of obstetrics and gynecology information system using cognitive walkthrough method. Electron Physician. 2018;10(4):6682-8. doi: 10.19082/6682.

26. Nabovati E, Vakili-Arki H, Eslami S, Khajouei R. Usability evaluation of Laboratory and Radiology Information Systems integrated into a hospital information system. J Med Syst. 2014;38(4):35. doi: 10.1007/s10916-014-0035-z.
27. Zakerabasali S, Monem H, Sharifian R, Khajouei R. Usability evaluation of Ulite web-based picture archiving and communication systems software in Shiraz University of medical science hospitals. Journal of Health Management & Informatics. 2015;2(4):132-7.
28. Peute LW, Jaspers MM. Usability evaluation of a laboratory order entry system: cognitive walkthrough and think aloud combined. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2005;116:599-604.
29. Lund A. Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. 2001. [accessed 2020-06-01]. Avilable from: https://www researchgate net/ publication/230786746_Measuring_Usability_with_the_USE_Questionnaire
30. Aziz NS, Kamaludin A. Assessing website usability attributes using partial least squares. International Journal of Information and Electronics Engineering. 2014;4(2):137. doi: 10.7763/IJIEE.2014.V4.423.
31. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research. 1981;18(1):39-50. doi: 10.2307/3151312.
32. Sepasgozar SM, Sargolzaei S, Sepasgozar SM, Kamardeen I, Sargolzaei S, editors. A model for increasing the security of internet of things in smart transportation systems. ISARC Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Automation and Robotics in Construction; 2018. doi: 10.22260/ISARC2018/0087.
33. Hair Jr JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): Sage publications; 2014.
34. Dhouib A, Trabelsi A, Kolski C, Neji M, editors. A classification and comparison of usability evaluation methods for interactive adaptive systems. 2016 9th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI); 2016. p.246-51. doi: 10.1109/HSI.2016.7529639.
35. Teshnizi SH, Alipour J, Haghighi MHH. Usability evaluation of hospital information system: A cross-sectional study. Applied Medical Informatics. 2020;42(2):118-25.
36. Farzandipour M, Nabovati E, Tadayon H, Sadeqi Jabali M. Usability evaluation of a nursing information system by applying cognitive walkthrough method. Int J Med Inform. 2021;152:104459. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104459.

37. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly. 1989;13:319-40. doi: 10.2307/249008.
38. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management science. 1989;35(8):982-1003. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.

39. Park KS, Lim CH. A structured methodology for comparative evaluation of user interface designs using usability criteria and measures. International journal of industrial ergonomics. 1999;23(5-6):379-89. doi: 10.1016/S0169-8141(97)00059-0.
40. Aggelidis VP, Chatzoglou PD. Hospital information systems: measuring end user computing satisfaction (EUCS). J Biomed Inform. 2012;45(3):566-79. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2012.02.009.

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,570
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,115


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب