Shachak Aviv, Dow Rustam, Barnsley Jan, Tu Karen, Domb Sharon, Jadad Alejandro R, Lemieux-Charles Louise
Faculty of Information and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto. Address: Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College St., Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada; ;
Faculty of Information, University of Toronto. Phone.
IEEE Trans Prof Commun. 2013 Jun 4;56(3):194-209. doi: 10.1109/TPC.2013.2263649.
Tutorials and user manuals are important forms of impersonal support for using software applications including electronic medical records (EMRs). Differences between user- and vendor documentation may indicate support needs, which are not sufficiently addressed by the official documentation, and reveal new elements that may inform the design of tutorials and user manuals.
What are the differences between user-generated tutorials and manuals for an EMR and the official user manual from the software vendor?
Effective design of tutorials and user manuals requires careful packaging of information, balance between declarative and procedural texts, an action and task-oriented approach, support for error recognition and recovery, and effective use of visual elements. No previous research compared these elements between formal and informal documents.
We conducted an mixed methods study. Seven tutorials and two manuals for an EMR were collected from three family health teams and compared with the official user manual from the software vendor. Documents were qualitatively analyzed using a framework analysis approach in relation to the principles of technical documentation described above. Subsets of the data were quantitatively analyzed using cross-tabulation to compare the types of error information and visual cues in screen captures between user- and vendor-generated manuals.
The user-developed tutorials and manuals differed from the vendor-developed manual in that they contained mostly procedural and not declarative information; were customized to the specific workflow, user roles, and patient characteristics; contained more error information related to work processes than to software usage; and used explicit visual cues on screen captures to help users identify window elements. These findings imply that to support EMR implementation, tutorials and manuals need to be customized and adapted to specific organizational contexts and workflows. The main limitation of the study is its generalizability. Future research should address this limitation and may explore alternative approaches to software documentation, such as modular manuals or participatory design.
教程和用户手册是使用包括电子病历(EMR)在内的软件应用程序的重要非个人支持形式。用户文档和供应商文档之间的差异可能表明存在官方文档未充分解决的支持需求,并揭示可能为教程和用户手册设计提供信息的新元素。
电子病历的用户生成教程和手册与软件供应商的官方用户手册之间有哪些差异?
教程和用户手册的有效设计需要精心组织信息,在说明性文本和程序性文本之间取得平衡,采用以行动和任务为导向的方法,支持错误识别和恢复,并有效使用视觉元素。以前没有研究比较过正式文档和非正式文档中的这些元素。
我们进行了一项混合方法研究。从三个家庭健康团队收集了七份电子病历教程和两份手册,并与软件供应商的官方用户手册进行了比较。根据上述技术文档原则,使用框架分析方法对文档进行定性分析。使用交叉列表对数据子集进行定量分析,以比较用户生成手册和供应商生成手册中屏幕截图中的错误信息类型和视觉提示。
用户开发的教程和手册与供应商开发的手册不同,它们主要包含程序性而非说明性信息;针对特定工作流程、用户角色和患者特征进行了定制;包含更多与工作流程而非软件使用相关的错误信息;并在屏幕截图上使用明确的视觉提示来帮助用户识别窗口元素。这些发现意味着,为了支持电子病历的实施,教程和手册需要针对特定的组织环境和工作流程进行定制和调整。该研究的主要局限性在于其普遍性。未来的研究应解决这一局限性,并可能探索软件文档的替代方法,如模块化手册或参与式设计。