Patterns and changes in prescriber attitudes toward PDA prescription-assistive technology
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
One study found early adopters of personal digital assistant to be younger with less clinical experience and more facile with technology.
“One study assessing characteristics of early and late adopters in the clinical use of personal digital assistant, found early adopters to be younger with less clinical experience and more facile with the use of technology.29”
From Clinician Adoption of an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm to Detect Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction in Primary Care. (2022) · cites this paper as [29]
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