Decision aids are being used in the exam room to assist physicians with diagnosing. Past research on computer-based decision aids examined perceived physician capabilities and degree of liability, and their impact on the patient-physician interaction. However, no one has contrasted the use of physical aids (physician’s desk reference) with computerized aids on these characteristics. In this study, participants were given a scenario in which they took on the role of the patient and were asked to rate the physician’s capabilities and degree of liability given a negative outcome. There were no significant differences between the aid types (computer, physical, or no) employed on physician capabilities or liability. However, we suggest that scenarios can effectively be used to assess the impact of decision aids on the physician-patient interaction.


scenario decision aid patient-physician interaction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arkes, H.R., Shaffer, V.A., Medow, M.A.: Patients derogate physicians who use a computer-assisted diagnostic aid. Medical Decision Making 27(2), 189–202 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bates, D.W., Teich, J.M., Lee, J.: The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. Journal of American Information Association 6(4), 313–321 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bieber, C., Muller, K.G., Nicolai, J., Hartmann, M., Eich, W.: How does your doctor talk with you? Preliminary validation of a brief patient self-report questionnaire on the quality of physician-patient interaction. Journal of Clinical Psychological Medical Settings 17(2), 125–136 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bristowe, K., Patrick, P.L.: Do too many cooks spoil the broth? The effect of observers on doctor-patient interaction. Medical Education 46(8), 785–794 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, Y., Ngo, V., Harrison, S., Duong, V.: Unpacking exam-room computing: Negotiating computer-use in patient-physician interactions, CHI, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 3343–3352 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cruickshank, P.J.: Computers in medicine: patient’s attitudes. The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 34(259), 77–80 (1984)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frankel, R., Altschuler, A., George, S., Kinsman, J., Jimison, H., Robertson, N.R., Hsu, J.: Effects of exam room computing on clinician-patient communication: a longitudinal qualitative study. Journal of General Internal Medicine 20(8), 677–682 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friedman, D.P., Elstein, A.S., Wolf, F.M.: Enhancement of clinicians‘diagnostic reasoning by computer-based consultation: a multisite study of 2 systems. JAMA 282, 1852–1854 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gorry, P.N., Barnett, G.O.: Experience with a model of sequential diagnosis. Computers and Biomedical Research 1(5), 490–507 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larkin, K., Kelliher, A.: Designing flexible EMR systems for recording and summarizing doctor-patient interactions, CHI, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 1609–1614 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leigh, T.M., Young, P.R., Haley, J.V.: Performances of family practice diplomats on successive mandatory recertification examinations. Academic Medicine 68(12), 912–918 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Linder, J.A., Rose, A.F., Palchuk, M.B., Chang, F., Schnipper, J.L., Chan, J.C., Middleton, B.: Decision support for acute problems: The role of the standardized patient in usability testing. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 39(6), 648–655 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, R.A.: Computer-assisted diagnostic decision support: history, challenges, and possible paths forward. Advances In Health Science Education 14(S1), 89–106 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pennachio, D.L.: Clinical guidelines sword or shield? Medical Economics 81(12), 22–24 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pezzo, M.V., Pezzo, S.D.: Physician evaluation after medical errors: Does having a computer diagnostic aid help or hurt in hindsight? Medical Decision Making 26(1), 48–56 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Potter, A.R.: Computers in general practice: the patient’s voice. Journal of Royal of General Practioners 31(232), 683–685 (1981)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Promberger, M., Baron, J.: Do patients trust computers? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 19(5), 455–468 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ramsey, P.G., Carline, J.D., Inui, T.S., Larson, L.O., Gerfo, J.P., Norcini, J.J., Wenrich, M.D.: Changes over time in the knowledge base of practicing internists. JAMA 266(8), 1103–1107 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ridderikhoff, J., Van Herk, E.: A diagnostic support system in general practice: is it feasible? International Journal of Medical Informatics 45(3), 133–143 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roter, D.L., Frankel, R.M., Hall, J.A., Sluyter, D.: The expression of emotion through nonverbal behavior in medical visits: Mechanisms and outcomes. Journal of General Internal Medicine 34(S1), S28–S34 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rouf, E., Whittle, J., Lu, N., Schwartz, M.D.: Computers in the exam room: Differences in physician-patient interaction be due to physician experience. Journal of General Internal Medicine 22(1), 43–48 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scott, D., Purves, I.N.: Triadic relationship between doctor, computer and patient. Interacting with Computers 8(4), 347–363 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shaffer, V.A., Probst, C.A., Merkle, E.C., Arkes, H.R., Meadow, M.A.: Why do patients derogate physicians who use a computer-based diagnostic support system? Medical Decision Making 33(1), 1–11 (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sharp, Rogers, Preece: Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction, 2nd edn., pp. 505–506, 558. Wiley, NJ (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tamblyn, R.M., Klass, D.K., Schanbl, G.K., Kopelow, M.L.: Factors associated with the accuracy of standardized patient presentation. Academic Medicine 65(S9), 55–56 (1990)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Waitzkin, H.: Doctor-patient communication. Clinical implications of social scientific research. JAMA 252(17), 2441–2446 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Curtis V. Lauterbach
    • 1
  • Jeremiah D. Still
    • 1
  1. 1.Missouri Western State UniversitySaint JosephUSA

Personalised recommendations