An Analysis of Physicians’ Attitudes

Despite the promise of medical computing innovations, many health care professionals have expressed skepticism about the computer’s role as an aid to clinicians. A number of barriers have been noted. For example, Friedman and Gustafson (1977) have suggested that system designers tend to develop systems that are neither convenient for physicians nor responsive to their needs. Glantz (1978) has questioned the trade-off in costs and benefits for most medical computing applications, including computerassisted consultations. Schwartz (1970) has noted that physicians are wary of formal decision aids because they perceive such tools to be a threat to their jobs and to their professional stature. He has also suggested that physicians are concerned about their ability to learn how to use computer systems (Schwartz, 1979), but that they simultaneously fear the prospect of being "left behind" if they fail to keep current. Other observers (Eisenberg, 1974; Weizenbaum, 1976) have questioned the role of computers as clinical consultation systems, suggesting that computer-based consultants may be an inappropriate use of computing technology that will inevitably degrade and debase the human function. Observations such as these are generally based on personal experience without benefit of formal studies of physicians’ attitudes. The few available studies have sought physicians’ opinions regarding computing technology in general, but have tended not to specifically examine attitudes regarding the clinical introduction of computers. One early study (Mayne et al., 1968) found little physician interest or faith in the role of computing technology. However, Startsman and Robinson (1972) and others (Day, 1970; Resnikoff