Evaluating a spoken dialogue system for recording clinical observations during an endoscopic examination
Abstract
Paper, keyboard or mouse-driven systems may not be suitable for data capture because of the hands-busy constraint imposed by an endoscopic examination. A Spoken Dialogue System (SDS) has a number of advantages when compared to keyboard and mouse-driven input modalities, particularly with respect to hands free and eyes-free control of a system. However, any emerging technology will never deliver improved organizational effectiveness if it is not accepted and used. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) provides a framework that helps explain the determinants of computer acceptance. This study, through the application of TAM, demonstrates a high level of user acceptance with clinicians wanting to use spoken dialogue technology for recording clinical observations during an endoscopic examination. Clinicians would also prefer to use a SDS for recording endoscopy rather than use a paper-based or keyboard and mouse-driven system. Using a clinical narrative during an endoscopic examination was also perceived to be a natural way to record findings. Relationships between basic TAM variables were confirmed and relationships between quality of dialogue measures and TAM variables were established.
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?
The physician specialties covered in reviewed studies were endoscopy, pediatrics, disability care, and a mix of specialists and general practitioners.
“The physician specialties covered were endoscopy [96], pediatrics [97], disability care [98], and some mix of specialists and general practitioners [32, 99-101].”
From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [96]
Only two reviewed studies had questions mentioning effort specifically.
“Despite the PEOU definitions given in Section 3.4 above, only two studies had questions mentioning effort specifically [96, 97].”
From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [96]
The added variables in reviewed studies included perceived IT system characteristics, personal characteristics of users, organizational characteristics, and psychological variables such as ownership and trust.
“The list of added variables includes various perceived IT system characteristics such as how well the system performs [96, 107, 112] and how relevant it is to one’s job [106], personal characteristics of users [98, 105, 106], characteristics of the organization such as readiness for IT or technical support [98, 105, 106, 109], and psychological variables such as ownership [101] and trust [103].”
From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [96]
Reviewed studies varied in the stage of health IT studied, including prototypes, trial systems, to-be-implemented systems, and implemented systems of different ages.
“Another is the stage of the health IT; some studies reviewed here studied prototypes [96], trial systems [107], or to-be-implemented systems [108], whereas others studied implemented systems that had been around for different lengths of times.”
From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [96]
Physicians and other health care providers differ from users of IT in other TAM studies, and the general health care context differs from the industries where TAM originated.
“Those in health care who advocate the use of TAM commonly point out how different physicians and other health care providers are from the users of IT in other studies of TAM, and how the general health care context differs from that of the industries where TAM originated [30, 32, 58, 61, 96, 98, 100].”
From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [96]
Few studies have done beliefs elicitation work with respect to health IT, and none to the authors' knowledge have revised TAM based on such work.
“Few have done this kind of beliefs elicitation work with respect to health IT [70, 72, 76, 96, 102], and none to our knowledge have revised TAM based on such work.”
From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [96]
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066 · see citing works
Venkatesh, V. (2000) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 · Cited by 6,664 · see citing works
Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V. (1996) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0040 · Cited by 1,421 · see citing works
A primer on leading the improvement of systems: Fig 1
Berwick, D. M. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7031.619 · Cited by 793 · see citing works
The theory of planned behaviour and health behaviours.
Conner, M. T., & SPARKS, P. B. (1996) · Open University Press eBooks · Cited by 719 · see citing works
Dowding, J., Gawron, J. M., Appelt, D., et al. (1993) · doi:10.3115/1075671.1075680 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Clinical acceptance of a low-cost portable system for postural assessment
Van Schaik, P., Bettany-Saltikov, J. A., & Warren, J. G. (2002) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290110107236 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Acceptance of a speech interface for biomedical data collection.
Grasso, M. A., Ebert, D. S., & Finin, T. (1997) · PubMed · doi:10.13016/m2dc21-3bgm · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Giachin, E. P. (1997) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Speech Driven Natural Language Understanding for Hands-Busy Recording of Clinical Information
Barker, D. J., Lynch, S. C., Simpson, D., et al. (1999) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-48720-4_45 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002 · Cited by 2,669 · see citing works
A Systematic Review of the Technology Acceptance Model in Health Informatics
Rahimi, B., Nadri, H., Lotfnezhad Afshar, H., & Timpka, T. (2018) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1668091 · Cited by 688 · see citing works
Van Schaik, P., Flynn, D., Van Wersch, A., Douglass, A., & Cann, P. (2004) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929041000669941 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
- Authors
- DJ, B., P, V. S., DS, S., & WA, C.
- Affiliations
- Teesside University (GB)
- James Cook University Hospital (GB)
- Venue
- Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 85-97
- ISSN
- 1463-9238 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2166588342
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 2.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Teesside University Research Portal (Teesside University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Keywords
- spoken dialogue systems, endoscopy, technology acceptance, user acceptance, hands-free input, clinical text, clinical decision support
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Electronic Data Processing, Clinical Laboratory Information Systems, Database Management Systems, United Kingdom, Hospitals, University, Humans, Male, Medical Staff, Hospital, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, User-Computer Interface, Voice, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal, Observation
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