Cited by 544Electronic Health Records SystemsUsability and User Interface DesignData Visualization and Analytics

The think aloud method: a guide to user interface design

JASPERS, M, STEEN, T, BOS, C, GEENEN, M·2004·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Objectives Clinical use of computer systems has been hampered by their poorly designed user interfaces. The objective of this study was to design a user interface for a pediatric oncologists' computerized patient record with great consideration of their working behavior and of human computer interfacing principles so as to contribute to oncologists' efficiency and satisfaction in interaction with the system.Methods The think aloud method was used in combination with video recording to get a deep understanding of the way in which four pediatric oncologists searched through the paper-based patient record in preparing a patient visit. Protocol and video analyses was used to develop a cognitive task model reflecting pediatric oncologists' task behavior. This model was input for a prototype user interface, which was subsequently evaluated by eight other pediatric oncologists.Results The resulting computerized medical record system proved to meet pediatric oncologists' information needs and task behavior patterns. The design of the user interface minimized pediatric oncologists' work load and was highly efficient in supporting the pediatric oncologists in preparing their patient visits. The pediatric oncologists were very much satisfied with the computer system.Conclusions It is argued that early involvement of cognitive engineering methods in the system design process may be of great help in designing systems that fully support health care professionals' work practices. The think aloud method, if applied under prescribed conditions, is a valuable information source of human task-behavior and as such a useful technique for requirements analysis in designing clinical computer systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.08.003

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
JASPERS, M., STEEN, T., BOS, C., & GEENEN, M.
Affiliations
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
JASPERS, M
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-11
Volume
73
Issue
11-12
Pages
781-795
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2075016831
Cited by
544
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 22
FWCI
12.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
Keywords
think-aloud, user interface design, pediatric oncology, electronic health records, clinical information systems, cognitive engineering, requirements analysis, clinical workflow, user workload, user satisfaction
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care Facilities, Child, Equipment Design, Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Netherlands, Pediatrics, Practice Patterns, Physicians', User-Computer Interface, Medical Records Systems, Computerized

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review