Cited by 36Electronic Health Records SystemsSpeech and dialogue systemsTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Evaluating a spoken dialogue system for recording clinical observations during an endoscopic examination

DJ, BARKER, P, VAN SCHAIK, DS, SIMPSON, WA, CORBETT·2003·Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1080/14639230310001600452

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • 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].”
  • 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].”
  • 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].”
  • 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.”
  • 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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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