Skip to main content

A Formative Evaluation of a Comprehensive Search System for Medical Professionals

  • Conference paper
Information Access Evaluation. Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Visualization (CLEF 2013)

Abstract

Medical doctors need rapid and accurate answers, which they cannot easily find with current search systems. This paper describes a formative evaluation of a comprehensive search system for medical professionals. The study was designed to guide system development. The system features included search in text and 2D images, machine translated summaries of search results, as well as query disambiguation and suggestion features, and a comprehensive search user interface. The study design emphasizes qualitative user feedback, based on realistic simulated work tasks and data collection with spontaneous and prompted self-report, written and spoken feedback in response to questionnaires, was well as audio and video recordings, and log files. Results indicate that this is a fruitful approach to uncovering problems and eliciting requirements that would be harder to find in a component-based evaluation testing each feature separately.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Hersh, W.R., Hickam, D.H.: How well do physicians use electronic information retrieval systems? a framework for investigation and systematic review. JAMA 280(15), 1347–1352 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hoogendam, A., Stalenhoef, A.F.H., de Vries Robbé, P.F., Overbeke, A.J.P.M.: Answers to Questions Posed During Daily Patient Care Are More Likely to Be Answered by UpToDate Than PubMed. J. Med. Internet Res. 10(4) (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ely, J.W., Osheroff, J.A., Maviglia, S.M., Rosenbaum, M.E.: Patient-care questions that physicians are unable to answer. JAMA 14, 407–414 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kelly, D.: Methods for evaluating interactive information retrieval systems with users. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, vol. 3(1-2) (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang, P., Plettenberg, L., Klavans, J.L., Oard, D.W., Soergel, D.: Task-based interaction with an integrated multilingual, multimedia information system: A formative evaluation. In: JCDL 2007, Vancouver, Canada, June 17-22. ACM (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beckers, T., Dungs, S., Fuhr, N., Jordan, M., Kriewel, S.: ezDL: An interactive search and evaluation system. In: SIGIR 2012 Workshop on Open Source Information Retrieval, OSIR 2012 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cunningham, H., Tablan, V., Roberts, I., Greenwood, M.A., Aswani, N.: Information Extraction and Semantic Annotation for Multi-Paradigm Information Management. In: Lupu, M., Mayer, K., Tait, J., Trippe, A.J. (eds.) Current Challenges in Patent Information Retrieval. The Information Retrieval Series, vol. 29. Springer (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. García Seco de Herrera, A., Markonis, D., Eggel, I., Müller, H.: The medGIFT Group in ImageCLEFmed 2012. In: CLEF (Online Working Notes/Labs/Workshop) (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kiryakov, A., Ognyanov, D., Manov, D.: OWLIM – A Pragmatic Semantic Repository for OWL. In: Dean, M., Guo, Y., Jun, W., Kaschek, R., Krishnaswamy, S., Pan, Z., Sheng, Q.Z. (eds.) WISE 2005 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 3807, pp. 182–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Health On the Net Foundation: The HON Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites, HONcode (2013), http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Patients/Conduct.html

  11. Kritz, M., Gschwandtner, M., Stefanov, V., Hanbury, A., Samwald, M.: Utilization and perceived problems of online medical resources and search tools among different groups of European physicians. J. Med. Internet Res. (forthcoming, 2013)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Borlund, P.: The IIR evaluation model: A framework for evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Information Research 8(3), 152 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brooke, J.: SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., McClelland, A.L. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor and Francis, London (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  14. TechSmith Corporation: Morae usability testing software, version 3.3.2 (2013), http://www.techsmith.com/morae.html

  15. Hornbaek, K., Law, E.L.C.: Meta-analysis of correlations among usability measures. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 617–626 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Stefanov, V., Sachs, A., Kritz, M., Samwald, M., Gschwandtner, M., Hanbury, A. (2013). A Formative Evaluation of a Comprehensive Search System for Medical Professionals. In: Forner, P., Müller, H., Paredes, R., Rosso, P., Stein, B. (eds) Information Access Evaluation. Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Visualization. CLEF 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8138. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40802-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40802-1_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40801-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40802-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics