Personal digital assistants (PDAs) find many uses in health care. Knowing rates of collective PDA use among health care providers is an important guiding step to further understanding those health care contexts that are most suited to PDA use and whether PDAs provide improved health outcomes.
The objectives of this study were to estimate current and future PDA use among health care providers and to discuss possible implications of that use on choice of technology in clinical practice and research.
This study was a systematic review of PDA usage surveys. Surveys were identified as part of an ongoing systematic review on the use of handheld devices. Reports from eight databases covering both biomedical sciences and engineering (1993-2006) were screened against distinct eligibility criteria. Data from included surveys were extracted and verified in a standardized way and were assessed descriptively.
We identified 23 relevant surveys, 15 of which were derived from peer-reviewed journals. This cohort of surveys was published between 2000 and 2005. Overall, since 1999, there is clear evidence of an increasing trend in PDA use. The current overall adoption rate for individual professional use ranges between 45% and 85%, indicating high but somewhat variable adoption, primarily among physicians.
Younger physicians and residents and those working in large and hospital-based practices are more likely to use a PDA. The adoption rate is now at its highest rate of increase according to a commonly accepted diffusion of innovations model. A common problem with the evaluation of information technology is that use frequently precedes research. This is the case here, in which PDA adoption rates are already high and projections are for rapid growth in the short term. In general, it appears that professional PDA use in health care settings involves more administrative and organizational tasks than those related to patient care, perhaps signaling where the growth in adoption is most likely to occur. We conclude that physicians are likely accustomed to using a PDA, and, therefore, technology expertise will probably not be a barrier to implementing PDA applications. However, there is an urgent need to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of specific tasks using handheld technology to inform those developing and those using PDA applications.
A handheld computing device, also commonly known as a personal digital assistant (PDA), is a mobile computer about the size of the palm of the hand. More modern devices can access external networks or the Internet through a wireless connection. Since 1993, when Apple launched the first PDA (Newton MessagePad), use of PDAs has increased worldwide, with global PDA sales projected to surpass 17 million in 2008. This represents a compounded annual growth rate of 17.8% between 2002 and 2008 [
Health care has not been immune to this technological advance in handheld computing. In fact, PDAs find many applications in health care. Family physicians and specialists have been using PDAs for general medical reference, such as drug interactions, pharmacopeias, and cardiac risk [
Many of us would agree that it is necessary to evaluate a technology before its adoption to allow health care providers to make informed decisions. However, given that technology is a moving target, a common problem with evaluation is that practice frequently precedes research. By the time researchers have obtained funding, completed a study, and published it, the technology is either in widespread use or has been abandoned [
In a general overview article, Fischer et al (2003) summarized the current literature covering the use of handheld devices in medicine, primarily related to PDA functionality [
For the purposes of this systematic review of surveys, the term PDA is used synonymously to refer to any handheld device. Some examples include the following: Blackberry; Palm operating system devices, which include Palm Tungstens, Handspring Visor, and Sony Clie; and Pocket PC devices, which include the Compaq iPAQ and HP Jordana.
Surveys were identified as a subset selected from a broader systematic review examining all studies related to handheld devices in health care settings. Thus, initial search strategies and retrieved articles reflected this more extensive focus. This comprehensive literature search was conducted in consultation with an information specialist. The searched bibliographic databases covered both medical and engineering disciplines, including the following eight databases: Medline, Current Contents, Inspec, BA/RRM, Biotechnology, Biological Abstracts, EI Compendex, and EMBASE. The search was restricted to English-language literature published January 1993 (corresponding to the development of the first palm device) to February 2005. An updated search of Medline (PubMed) and EI Compendex (EI Village 2) was run near the project’s completion (January 30, 2006).
Furthermore, the reference lists from included studies were examined in an effort to identify additional surveys not captured in the reference databases. In addition, surveys identified from Google searches and those known to the authors to have been conducted by private market research firms as well as physician groups were nominated for inclusion in our screening.
The intent of searching the biomedical databases was to retrieve
Surveys were included for this present review if they met the following initial criteria: related to an application in human health care and involved the use of a PDA device; contained original data; written in English (not including abstract or conference proceedings); published after 1993; and specifically reported handheld usage rates (prevalence of PDA use as a metric) in populations of health care professionals who were surveyed about the extent of their PDA use. Although conference proceedings were excluded, if deemed potentially relevant, a cross-check was conducted to see if there was an ensuing journal publication. A survey was not included if the handheld device being evaluated had undergone extensive custom modifications. A final set of unique references was identified and posted to the proprietary Web-based screening system SRS (Systematic Review Software).
The selection process for this present survey review consisted of two phases. First, it began with a screen of full-text articles that had already been retained because their title, abstract, or keywords suggested they contained relevant information on PDA use in health care settings. Therefore, for assessment of relevance, surveys were included if they appeared to contain pertinent study information and if there was no unequivocal reason for exclusion. Second, upon updating the searches, authors returned to the screening of the title, abstract, and keywords for each citation strictly to identify potentially relevant and most recent PDA usage surveys. Eligibility criteria were applied to the full-text surveys, which were reviewed independently by two reviewers (CG and KE). Disagreements were resolved by consensus.
Modified QUOROM Flow Chart for Identified PDA Usage Surveys
The contents of each included survey were abstracted by one reviewer (CG), with an additional research assistant providing verification (TR).
The data from all included surveys were extracted in a predefined, standardized fashion with abstraction verified by a second person and assessed descriptively (
Included surveys
|
|
|
|
|
1 | 1999/2000 | Hucko [ |
15% (use in clinical work) | Physicians |
2 | NS/2001 | ACP-ASIM [ |
47% (use in clinical work) | Specialists (Internists) |
3 | 2001/2001 | Versel* [ |
60% (use in practice) | Physician Executives (organizational survey) |
4 | 2001/2001 | Martin [ |
19.3% (use in clinical practice) | Physicians & Specialists |
5 | 2001/2001 | Taylor [ |
26% (use in practice) | Physicians |
6 | 2001-2002/2002 | AAP [ |
38% (NS) | Specialists (Pediatricians) |
7 | 2000-2001/2002 | Criswell* [ |
67% (use in practice) | Residents (Family Medicine) (organizational survey) |
8 | 2001/2004 | Miller [ |
26.2% (office-based use) | Physicians |
9 | 2001/2004 | Balen [ |
33% (use at work or home) | Pharmacists |
10 | 2001-2002/2004 | Barrett [ |
75% (use in practice) | Medical Residents |
11 | 2002/2002 | Martin [ |
27.9% (use in clinical practice) | Physicians & Specialists |
12 | 2002/2002 | Versel* [ |
33% (use in physician offices) | Physician Executives (organizational survey) |
13 | 2002/2003 | McCleod [ |
46% (use at medical institutions) | Specialists, Medical Residents, & Fellows (Internists) |
14 | 2002/2004 | Carroll [ |
35% (use at work) | Specialists (Pediatricians) |
15 | 2002/2004 | DeGroote [ |
61% (use on an academic health science campus) | Health Sciences Faculty & Medical Residents |
16 | 2003/2003 | Martin [ |
32.9% (use in clinical practice) | Physicians & Specialists |
17 | NS/2003 | Vincent [ |
36% (use alone or in conjunction with log-card procedure in documenting) | Medical Residents (Family Practice) |
18 | 2003/2003 | Versel* [ |
75% (carry & use PDAs) | Physician Excutives (organizational survey) |
19 | 2004/2005 | AMA/Forrester [ |
57% (use regularly in a work week) | Physicians, Specialists (Surgeons), & Medical Residents |
20 | 2004/2005 | Wilden [ |
91% own; 85% use on daily basis; 9% weekly; 215% monthly | Specialists (Anestheologists) |
21 | 2001/2005 | Stromski* [ |
64% of programs report “most or all” residents use for clinical purposes | Medical Resident Programs (Emergency Medicine) (organizational survey) |
22 | NS/2005 | Stroud [ |
67% (NS) | Nurse Practitioners & Students |
23 | NS/2005 | Boonn [ |
45.1% (own or use daily) | Specialists (Radiologists) |
NS/2004 | Joy† [ |
Difficult to interpret the prevalence numbers among the resident respondents | Medical Residents (Obstetrics & Gynecology) | |
2004/2005 | National Physician Survey (Canada)† [ |
Unable to establish overall prevalence due to way data have been presented; |
Physicians, Specialists (various), & Medical Students | |
Note: An excerpt from the “Taking the Pulse” study published in October 2004 by Manhattan Research [ |
NS = not specified
*Survey conducted at organizational level (vs individual level responses)
†Survey of PDA use but prevalence data could not be established (referred to descriptively only)
From a total of 816 full-text articles that underwent relevance assessment for a systematic review of the literature examining broad-ranging PDA use in health care, a subset of 18 surveys reporting PDA prevalence rates were identified (see
It is from this pool of literature that a total of 23 unique surveys were identified (
The included surveys were published between 2000 and 2005, with survey data collected between 1999 and 2004. One survey had a four-year lag between data collection and publication, three surveys had a lag of three years, and three surveys had a lag of two years. We were unable to determine publication lag in four surveys as no data collection dates were provided. Surveys were from the United States (16), Canada (4), Australia (1), both the United States and Puerto Rico (1), and both the United States and Canada (1). Survey methodology reflected the following: self-administered questionnaires distributed solely by mail (11); telephone interviews (2); Web-based online surveys (4); and combined distribution by electronic or postal mail as determined by the recipient (4). Two studies did not report the methodology used. Response rates ranged from 5.7% to 92.6% across 13 of the included surveys; 10 surveys did not report such rates.
In presenting the results, we group the PDA users by type of health care provider and personal characteristics (eg, age).
In terms of PDA use, physician specialists were surveyed exclusively in five surveys. Three surveys examined practicing physicians, three included physicians and specialists combined, two included medical residents exclusively, while two surveyed an amalgam of physicians, specialists, medical residents, and/or students. Three surveys targeted physician executives and organizational practice leaders. One survey was directed at directors of family practice residency programs, while a further survey targeting individual PDA use in emergency medicine resident programs was completed at the organizational level.
In addition to physicians as users of technology, one survey targeted practicing hospital pharmacists and another targeted a national sample of nurse practitioner students and faculty. One survey included faculty and residents across several health science disciplines, including medicine, dentistry, nursing, public health, pharmacy, and applied health science.
To more accurately reflect handheld use across time, reported surveys were examined, when possible, from the timepoint when survey data were collected versus when published. When not possible, the publication date was the reported timepoint used. Collectively, the included surveys do indicate that PDA use is high, albeit somewhat variable, across studies. The reported prevalence rates of PDA use lend themselves well to an estimation of trend over time (
Range plots of PDA usage by health care providers (n = 17); middle points represent range medians
To elaborate on the percentage of overall adoptions rates, a US survey of 769 practicing physicians conducted in 1999 found that only 15% of physicians use a PDA in practice [
In Canada, similar PDA use data have been collected since 2001 as part of the annual Physician Resource Questionnaire conducted by the Canadian Medical Association. PDA use among physicians increased from 19% in 2001 [
In a PriceWaterhouseCoopers survey in 2001, 60% of the physician executives who responded indicated that their organization had at least one physician with a PDA [
In 2004, 57% of a sample of US physicians indicated that they regularly used a handheld computer in a typical work week [
While PDA use has clearly increased since 1999, it appears as though only a handful of studies have examined the prevalence and usage patterns of such technology outside of physician groups. Furthermore, when comparing the included surveys in depth, distribution of use is not uniform across selected characteristics of surveyed health care professionals. Therefore, further subgroup analyses from the included surveys are provided below. Patterns of handheld use are also briefly examined.
Based on a survey of 250 family physicians, as far back as 1995, younger physicians (less then 40 years of age) were more likely to consider carrying a handheld computer than older physicians (94% vs 84.5%) [
Residents tend to be younger, therefore it follows that they are more likely to use PDAs. This is also substantiated by direct evidence. A survey of directors of family practice in the United States and Puerto Rico conducted in November 2000 (306 responses) found that use of handhelds in residency programs, either by an individual or group, was 67% [
One survey by Joy et al (2004) met our initial criteria but could not be incorporated into the results analysis. Although this study did examine PDA use in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs, it was difficult to interpret the prevalence numbers among the resident respondents. Likewise, the National Physician Survey (2004) did not present overall PDA prevalence rates but did ask Canadian medical students if they had a PDA or wireless device [
PDA usage among men and women was equal in a 2001 survey of internists [
The most recent Physician Resource Questionnaire (2003) analysis concluded that Canadian family physicians were just as likely to use a PDA (33%) when compared to medical (34%) and surgical (32%) specialists [
A US survey of practicing physicians found that use was higher among those who were wholly or partly hospital-based (33% and 29%, respectively) than among those who were office-based (23%) [
From a random sample of US pediatricians in 2002, PDA users were most likely from urban communities [
Five surveys considered PDA use in both a professional and personal context; 17 studies exclusively captured professional use. One study reported general prevalence rates for PDA use among pediatricians; however, it did not specify if use was in clinical practice or outside of work.
In order to discern professional use more closely, we explored administrative PDA uses versus direct use in clinical patient care. We found that of the surveys that concern PDA use within a health care setting, 17 of 23 studies (74%) reported use pertaining to administrative or organizational tasks, while 14 of 23 studies (61%) addressed PDA use in patient care. Billing and coding were the most frequently performed administrative PDA functions in 50% of the surveys reporting administrative uses. This was followed by 44% reporting calendar scheduling, 31% reporting Web and email access, 25% reporting address book use, and 25% stating use in charting patient details into an electronic health record. Other reported administrative tasks included the following: word processing, calculator, charge capture, procedure documentation, outpatient tracking, resident hours, telephone message tracking, general time management/personal organizer, patient referrals, procurement of supplies, patient census, order entry, dictation, and passwords and pins.
In terms of patient care, access to drug information was reported in 93% of the surveys reporting clinical PDA use, while 50% reported prescribing, 43% stated accessing patient records, 43% described medical calculator use, and 36% indicated use in reference to laboratory values. Other reported clinical PDA uses included access to medical references, patient tracking and patient reminders, clinical decision pathways and managed care applications, telemedicine, and diagnostic imaging or radiology applications.
Only one survey reported PDA use for patient education, and one referred to PDA use for research purposes.
This paper summarizes the results from surveys examining adoption of PDA use. These survey data are in reasonably good agreement and suggest a sizable proportion of physicians use handheld devices. However, most of the sources of survey data did not distinguish well between types of applications being used most often and whether the PDAs were being used professionally for administrative purposes or for direct clinical work. It is encouraging to note that our findings are similar to those of an analysis of online registrations and downloads of a PDA drug reference guide, which concluded that approximately one fifth of US physicians (150000) and half of medical students in the United States (33000) were PDA users [
Our grouped survey data suggest that there is little information on the PDA usage rates among nonphysician health care providers. However, collectively, these data suggest that use of handheld devices has become a subject that health care professionals need to know about. By systematically gathering this usage information, it is difficult to deny the prevalence of PDAs in health care. With this basic understanding of current handheld usage patterns, we need to consider the impact of this development of mobile handheld technology on both practice and research.
According to a commonly accepted descriptive model of the diffusion of innovations developed by Rogers, when the cumulative rate of users of a new invention is plotted versus time, the result is an S-shaped curve [
Health care information technologies have also been examined within this diffusion framework. England et al (2000) studied organizational and technological factors determining the rate at which innovations diffuse in the health industry [
Technologies typically go through multiple phases during their adoption life cycle, which may last for many years [
The S-shaped diffusion of technology curve [
The increase in PDA adoption means a potential reduction in hardware and training costs when using handheld devices in the provision of care and in research. Because of the high probability that target health care professionals may already have a handheld device and will already know how to use one, the overall hardware purchase costs could be reduced, and the end user will not necessarily have to be trained from scratch.
To date, use of PDAs in health care appears to have preceded extensive evaluative research. PDA adoption rates, already high, continue to be a moving mark with projections for rapid growth in the short term. By comparing handheld device diffusion to other health information innovations, and by placing PDA use within existing diffusion models, we are able to better predict the future of handheld growth in health care and therefore develop more timely and appropriate evaluative research to accompany such growth.
Unfortunately, we were unable to include information from two national physician surveys. The first report entitled “Taking the Pulse” was published in October 2004 by Manhattan Research [
The second national physician survey not incorporated into our analysis was the Canadian National Physician Survey (NPS) (2004), which provides valuable insight into what information technology, including PDAs, physicians and specialists have in their main patient care settings [
It is worthy to note that, with the exception of one survey focusing on nurse practitioner students, little mention was made in the surveys of PDA use by students across health care disciplines, including medicine. Several universities in Canada and the United States now mandate use of PDAs for medical undergraduate students and residency programs; therefore, it is assumed this could potentially affect prevalence rates. However, because none of the included surveys examined mandated use, we are unable to infer if this is responsible for recent increases. However, this raises an important issue to be considered in future studies related to students and rates of handheld adoption.
To better understand the prevalence rates among the included surveys, it became important to categorize the drivers for PDA use as either professional or personal. We therefore attempted to discern what specific PDA tasks the respective health care professionals were performing. This was done by classifying, whenever possible, the use as administrative versus care. On the surface, it would appear that administrative and organizational tasks on a PDA exceed those related to patient care, perhaps signaling where the growth in adoption is most likely to occur.
In this present review, we can only speak broadly to rates of adoption and patterns of use. Drawing inferences from the survey data was often limited by lack of, or differences in, operational definitions in aspects of handheld use being measured. For example, the term
In conclusion, physicians are increasingly accustomed to using a PDA, and, therefore, technology expertise will not likely be a barrier to deploying handheld applications. There is an urgent need to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of specific tasks using PDA technology (eg, implementation, searching, reference, data entry, reporting) to inform those persons developing and those using handheld applications. Furthermore, it is not clear why there is a paucity of evidence on the extent of adoption of PDAs by other health care providers: is it that they lag in the use of this technology or is it simply that they have yet to be studied?
This review has a number of limitations. Issues around response bias and inability to draw causal inferences weaken survey methodology. It may be the case that those surveyed feel a stronger affinity to the survey sponsor, who has a greater interest in the questions asked, or are in complete disagreement with the topic at hand. This can skew results in difficult-to-measure ways. Quite possibly, the nonrespondents are the least committed (ie, nonusers of PDAs). As a result, the critical objective of drawing a true random sample of the populations that are the focus of the survey is compromised and the findings somewhat impure.
The reported methodologies across these surveys appear to be heterogeneous, which limits their comparability. As noted, the quality of the included surveys could not be determined given the absence of validated quality assessment instruments, and, therefore, there was no adequate way to assess the influence of bias. A related issue is that some of the included surveys did not go through a rigorous peer-review process. These combined issues made judging the strength of the evidence not possible. One would assume surveys identified from scientific journals would be a source of less biased information. However, in defense of the nonacademic surveys, there is a consistency in results between those peer-reviewed versus those that were not. This may suggest that our main conclusions regarding adoption rates are fairly robust and not disconnected even with the inclusion of non–peer-reviewed evidence.
The objective of this study was to determine the adoption rates of PDAs in health care settings, and to project expected adoption in the future based on established technology diffusion models. Our findings from a systematic review indicate the current overall adoption rate for professional use of PDAs among health care providers, namely physicians, is 45% to 85%. Younger physicians, residents, and those working in large and hospital-based practices are more likely to use a PDA. Professional use in health care settings appears to be more focused on administrative tasks when compared to those related to patient care, although this requires further study. The adoption rate is now at its highest rate of increase according to a commonly accepted diffusion of innovations model. Additionally, the impact of PDA use on practice appears to be immediate in terms of costs and training. Familiarity will not likely be a barrier to deploying handheld applications in health care. However, there is a critical need to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of specific tasks using handheld technology within the health care system and across health care provider PDA user groups.
Khaled El Emam is a co-founder of and has financial interests in TrialStat Corporation, a software company that develops electronic data collection tools for mobile devices.
The authors would like to acknowledge the Chalmers Research Group, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute for their in-kind support. The authors would also like to acknowledge Dr. Harvey Skinner, Professor and Chair of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, for providing preliminary comments on this project. The authors would also like to extend a thank you to Ms. Tiffany Richards for providing assistance with data extraction.
National Physician Survey
Personal Digital Assistant
#19 (#17 and (la=english)) or ((#12 and (la=english)) or (#10 and (la=English))) #18 #17 and (la=english) #17 (palm or palms) and (microcomputer or computer or software)(157 records) #16 palm or palms #15 microcomputer or computer or software #14 (#12 and (la=english)) or (#10 and (la=English)) #13 #12 and (la=english) #12 hand held computer #11 #10 and (la=English) #10 (handspring or apple newton or jornada) or (windows ce or pocket pc or clie) or (pda or personal digital assistant or personal digital assistants) or (handheld computer) or (palm pilot or palm os) or (blackberry or ipaq) #9 palm pilot or palm os #8 (la=english) and #7 #7 (handspring or apple newton or jornada) or (windows ce or pocket pc or clie) or (pda or personal digital assistant or personal digital assistants) or (palm pilot or palm or palms or palm os) or (handheld computer) or (blackberry or ipaq) #6 blackberry or ipaq #5 handspring or apple newton or jornada #4 windows ce or pocket pc or clie #3 pda or personal digital assistant or personal digital assistants #2 palm pilot or palm or palms or palm os #1 handheld computer
Additional database search histories are available upon request from the authors.
Characteristics and Results of Surveys of PDA Use by Health Care Providers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Hucko, 2000, US [ |
1999 | Mail survey | Practicing Physicians | 769 respondents; RR NR |
|
NR | NR | NR | ||
ACP-ASIM, 2001, US [ |
NS | NR | Physicians (Internists) | 489 respondents; RR NR |
|
< 40 years = 60% |
NR |
NR | ||
Versel, 2001, US [ |
2001 | Mail survey | Physician Executives | 432 respondents; RR NR |
|
NR | NR | NR | ||
Martin, 2001, Canada [ |
2001 | Mail survey | Physicians (General Practitioners/ Family Physicians; Medical Specialists; Surgical Specialists) | For general survey RR = 42%; for PDA question 3246 respondents (992 female/2254 male); RR NR |
|
< 35 years = 26.8% |
Female = 15.4% |
NR | ||
Taylor, 2001, US [ |
2001 |
Interviews (type NR) | Practicing Physicians | Nationwide sample 834; RR NR |
|
< 45 years = 33% |
NR | Group size: |
||
AAP: Periodic Survey of Fellows #51, 2002, US [ |
2001 (Oct)-2002 (Feb) | Self-administered mail survey | Pediatricians (members of AAP) | 1616 surveyed; 54.6% (882) |
|
Use highest among PDA users < 30 years (72%) | NR | 100% office-based practice | ||
Criswell, 2002, US & Puerto Rico [ |
2000 |
Mail survey | Directors of Family Practice Residency Programs | 610 directors (493 listed in AAFP; 117 ACOFP) ; 306 respondents (257 AAFP; 49 ACOFP) = RR of 50% | Use of handheld computers either by an individual or group reported |
NR | NR | NR | ||
Miller, 2004, US [ |
2001 |
Interviews (telephone) | Practicing Physicians | National stratified random sample of 1200; RR = 5.7% |
|
Specific use by age NR (but mean age 48 years according to Physician IT User Type classification) | Specific use by gender NR (but % male = 81.8% according to Physician IT User Type Classification provided) | Specific use by setting NR (but mean practice size MDs = 8.8; group practice % = 55.8% according to Physician IT User Type Classification) | ||
Balen, 2004, Canada [ |
2001 |
Mail survey | Practicing Hospital Pharmacists | 106 sampled; 58 completed; RR = 55% |
|
NR | NR | NR | ||
Barrett, 2004, US [ |
2001 (Oct)-2002 (Apr) | Email invitation & online Web-based survey | Medical Residents from 7 residency programs (primary care & specialty programs) | Contacted 223 residents enrolled in six week residency programs; 88 completed survey RR = 40% |
|
NR | NR | NR | ||
Martin, 2002, Canada [ |
2002 | Mail survey | Physicians (General Practitioners/ Family Physicians; Medical Specialists; Surgical Specialists) | For general survey RR = 37%; PDA question 2882 respondents (912 female/1970 male); RR NR |
|
< 35 years =43.7% |
Female = 23.8% |
NR | ||
Versel, 2002, US [ |
2002 | Mail survey | Physician Executives | 444 respondents; RR NR |
|
R | R | NR | ||
McLeod, 2003, US [ |
2002 |
Mail survey | Internal Medicine Physicians & Residents | Mailed to 867 (473 returned & completed); RR=55% | Proportion of respondents who reported current PDA use = |
< 30 years = 68% |
Female = 38% |
Dept. of Internal Medicine at a multi-specialty, tertiary care academic medical center in the US Midwest | ||
Carroll, 2004, US [ |
2002 | Mail survey | Pediatricians (including residents) | Random sample of 2130 pediatricians; 1185 responded; RR = 62.3% |
|
NR | NR |
Users most likely in urban community (AOR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.30-2.55) |
||
De Groote, 2004, US [ |
2002 |
Email invitation & online Web-based survey | Tenure, tenure-track & faculty and residents (including medical residents; dental, nursing, applied health sciences, public health science, pharmacy, and medical faculty) | 1538 sampled; 352 responders; RR = 24% |
|
NR | NR | NA | ||
Martin, 2003, Canada [ |
2003 | Mail survey or email | Physicians (General Practitioners/ Family Physicians; medical Specialists; Surgical Specialists) | For general survey RR = 28.4%; PDA question 2251 respondents (756 female/1486 male); RR NR |
|
< 35 years = 52.6% |
Female = 29% |
NR | ||
Vincent, 2003, US [ |
NS | Mail survey | Residents | RR = 62% |
|
NR | NR | NR | ||
Versel, 2003, US [ |
2003 |
Online Web-based Survey | Physician Executives | 436 survey respondents; RR NR |
|
NR | NR | NR | ||
AMA/Forrester, 2005, US [ |
2004 |
Mail and online Web-based survey | Physicians (General Practitioners/ Family Physicians; Specialists; Residents/ Students as chosen randomly from AMA’s database) | NR |
|
< 40 years = 55% use PDA in typical work week | Female = 47% |
Use in typical work week in primary practice (office-based with 10 or fewer physicians) = 49% | ||
Wilden, 2005, Australia [ |
2004 | Email request for Web-based survey | Anesthetists (members of ASA) | 1870 sampled; 215 responders; |
|
NR |
||||
Stromski, 2005, US [ |
2001 | Telephone survey | Emergency Medicine Residency Programs | 113/122 programs; RR = 92.6% |
|
NR | NR | NR | ||
Stroud, 2005, US [ |
NS | Questionnaire sent via email or postal mail | Nurse Practitioner Students and Faculty | 855 questionnaires distributed; 222 responded; RR = 27% |
|
NR |
Females = 64% |
NR | ||
Boonn, 2005, US & Canada [ |
NS | Recipients mailed surveys with option to complete by mail or via the Internet | Members of RSNA | 1628 surveys sent; RR = 32.4% |
|
NR | NR |
|||
PDA = personal digital assistant; NS = not specified; NR = not reported; RR = response rate; NA = not applicable; AAFP = American Academy of Family Physicians; AAP = American Association of Pediatricians; ACOFP = American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians; ACP = American College of Physicians; AMA = American Medical Association; ASIM = American Society of Internal Medicine; ASA = Australian Society of Anaesthetists; RSNA = Radiological Society of North America |