Cited by 16Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

Patterns and changes in prescriber attitudes toward PDA prescription-assistive technology

Vishwanath, Arun, Brodsky, Linda, Shaha, Steve, Leonard, Michael, Cimino, Michael·2009·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Context Medication error prevention is a priority for the U.S. healthcare system in the 21st century. Use of technology is considered by some as critical to achieve this goal. Knowledge of the attitudinal barriers to such adoption, however, is limited. Objective To determine the attitudes of frontline prescriber clinicians towards technology in general, and PDAs specifically, before and after introduction of a PDA in the clinical setting of medication prescribing. Design A pre- and post-intervention web-based survey, 12-14 months apart. Setting Academic tertiary care children's hospital. Participants Total of 244 prescriber clinicians. Intervention Distribution of a PDA with pediatric-specific medication prescribing information after completion of an on-line medication safety certification and other safety focused educational sessions. Main outcome measures Ratings (5-point Likert scale) reflecting perceptions and attitudes towards technology in general and technology in medical settings along with self-reported usage of the PDA for Rx. Results Early Adopters and Late Adopters were identified statistically, and the group membership reflected their prior exposure to and ownership of other technologies. Early Adopters tended to be younger and less experienced clinically (e.g., residents) and more frequent owners and users of technology. Early Adopters expressed significantly more favorable attitudes toward technology and PDAs on both pre- to post-intervention survey occasions.…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.10.004

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 39 · Cited by 16

Authors
Vishwanath, A., Brodsky, L., Shaha, S., Leonard, M., & Cimino, M.
Affiliations
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Women & Children's Hospital of Buffalo (US)
Corresponding author
Vishwanath, Arun
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-05
Volume
78
Issue
5
Pages
330-339
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2143673207
Cited by
16
References
39
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
New York State Department of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
prescriber attitudes, personal digital assistants, drug prescribing, medication error prevention, technology adoption, early adopters, late adopters, pediatric prescribing, drug safety, technology implementation, children's hospitals
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Data Collection, Diffusion of Innovation, Hospitals, Pediatric, Humans, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Internet, Computers, Handheld, Medical Order Entry Systems

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