Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
User Perceptions of Visual Blood: An International Mixed Methods Study on Novel Blood Gas Analysis Visualization
0
Zitationen
18
Autoren
2023
Jahr
Abstract
Blood gas analysis plays a central role in modern medicine. Advances in technology have expanded the range of available parameters and increased the complexity of their interpretation. By applying user-centered design principles, it is possible to reduce the cognitive load associated with interpreting blood gas analysis. In this international, multicenter study, we explored anesthesiologists' perspectives on Visual Blood, a novel visualization technique for presenting blood gas analysis results. We conducted interviews with participants following two computer-based simulation studies, the first utilizing virtual reality (VR) (50 participants) and the second without VR (70 participants). Employing the template approach, we identified key themes in the interview responses and formulated six statements, which were rated using Likert scales from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) in an online questionnaire. The most frequently mentioned theme was the positive usability features of Visual Blood. The online survey revealed that participants found Visual Blood to be an intuitive method for interpreting blood gas analysis (median 4, interquartile range (IQR) 4-4, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Participants noted that minimal training was required to effectively learn how to interpret Visual Blood (median 4, IQR 4-4, <i>p</i> < 0.001). However, adjustments are necessary to reduce visual overload (median 4, IQR 2-4, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Overall, Visual Blood received a favorable response. The strengths and weaknesses derived from these data will help optimize future versions of Visual Blood to improve the presentation of blood gas analysis results.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
2021 · 85.000 Zit.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
2009 · 82.791 Zit.
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
1977 · 76.889 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 62.764 Zit.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
2003 · 61.481 Zit.