| Title |
Healthcare information systems: the cognitive challenge
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12911-018-0584-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gavan Lintern, Al Motavalli |
| Abstract |
Healthcare work is, to a considerable extent, cognitive. Subsequently, the analysis and the design of supporting technology must be sensitive to the cognitive and adaptive demands of the work and to the cognitive strategies employed by healthcare practitioners. Despite the vital role that cognition plays in healthcare work, current technocentric design approaches for healthcare technology do not account for it, failing to observe it during analysis and failing to develop support for it during design. By review and analysis of case studies, we show that healthcare systems developed without input from cognitive analysis and cognitive design fail to take account of important healthcare work processes and workflows. In contrast, systems developed with a cognitively-focused design strategy demonstrate how it is possible to introduce technology that supports and enhances the work strategies of those engaged in patient care. Significant problems emerge when technological support systems are developed without any serious and comprehensive attempt to understand the cognitive capabilities and skills deployed by those involved in patient care. In contrast, significant benefits accrue from taking full account of those cognitive capabilities and skills. Subsequently, the design and development of supporting technology must be sensitive to the cognitive demands of the work and the cognitive strategies employed by healthcare practitioners. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 6 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 15% |
| United States | 4 | 10% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 5% |
| Armenia | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 18 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 23 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 29% |
| Scientists | 6 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 128 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 10% |
| Researcher | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 21% |
| Unknown | 37 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 21 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 14% |
| Engineering | 12 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 18% |
| Unknown | 41 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,330,517
of 24,214,995 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#57
of 2,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,032
of 451,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#2
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,214,995 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,152 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.