Advertisement

User Experiences of Incident Reporting Software in Fire Services: An Integrative Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Aimee Kendall RoundtreeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11589)

Abstract

This integrative review gathers data from published articles and user feedback for a meta-analysis of the common problems, use contexts, and recommendations. The project supplements primary interviews with secondary data from prior studies and reports, as well as online feedback and reviews. This approach helps validate user experience findings for rarely-tested products, and it helps to confirm and identify user affordances and system pain points. Findings suggest that poor visibility of system status, lack of match between system and real-world use, and opaque help and documentation are common barriers. NFIRS software programs also do not anticipate the cultural idiosyncrasies endemic to fire services (such as apprenticeship learning) that, if addressed, could help software users better recognize, diagnose and recover from decision-making errors. Firefighters request more functionality, more help to find pertinent codes, and differentiating between nondescript codes. Recommendations for improving the quality of software programs for incident reporting in fire services include improving customization features, providing templates and content guides, and improving the glossaries of common acronyms. Help systems should address the diverse backgrounds and levels of education that comprise fire services.

Keywords

Human factors Fire services Integrative review 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The project was funded by State Farm Companies Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Hopia, H., Latvala, E., Liimatainen, L.: Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 30(4), 662–669 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Whittemore, R., Knafl, K.: The integrative review: updated methodology. J. Adv. Nurs. 52(5), 546–553 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooper, H.M.: Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Rev. Educ. Res. 52(2), 291–302 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Torraco, R.J.: Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past and present to explore the future. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 15(4), 404–428 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doolen, J.: Meta-analysis, systematic, and integrative reviews: an overview. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 13(1), 28–30 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith, M.C., Stullenbarger, E.: A prototype for integrative review and meta-analysis of nursing research. J. Adv. Nurs. 16(11), 1272–1283 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    U.S. Fire Administration. National Fire Incident Reporting System active vendors. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/nfirs/vendors/active_vendors.html. Accessed 1 Feb 2019
  8. 8.
    U.S. Fire Administration. National Fire Incident Reporting System registered vendors. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/nfirs/vendors/registered_vendors.html. Accessed 1 Feb 2019
  9. 9.
    Kinsey, K., Aherns, M.: NFIRS incident types: Why aren’t they telling a clearer story? National Fire Protection Association, Quincy (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stefancic, J.: NFIRS Data Entry Analysis, Homeland Security Digital Library (2011). https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=698931. Accessed 1 Feb 2019
  11. 11.
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Conquering the unknowns: research and recommendations on the chronic problem of undetermined and missing data in the causal factors sections of the National Fire Incident Reporting System, The Foundation, Washington, DC (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith, M.: Determining NFIRS reporting accuracy by Alachua County Fire Rescue company officers. National Fire Academy, Emmitsburg (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stefancic, J.: Fire Inspection Program Analysis. National Fire Academy, Emmitsburg (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nielsen Norman Group: 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design (1994). https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/. Accessed 1 Feb 2019
  15. 15.
    Krueger, J.: Garbage in? Evaluating the consistency of the data input into the MTFPD NFIRS compliant database. National Fire Academy, Emmitsburg (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coleman, K.J.: Are low cost accountability, communications, and management systems for emergency first responders using 3G and 4G cellular technologies feasible? Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peacock, R., Forney, G.: Multi-phase study on firefighter safety and the deployment of Resources (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Romano, M., Onorati, T., Aedo, I., Diaz, P.: Designing mobile applications for emergency response: citizens acting as human sensors. Sensors 16(3), 406 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    del Olmo Pueblas, S.: Real-time visualization of multi-source, heterogeneous data in emergency. Association for Computer Linguistics, Stroudsburg (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chronaki, C.E., Kontoyiannis, V., Charalambous, E., Vrouchos, G., Mamantopoulos, A., Vourvahakis, D.: Satellite-enabled eHealth applications in disaster management-experience from a readiness exercise. In: Computers in Cardiology, pp. 1005–1008 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Averill, J.D., Moore-Merrell, L., Notarianni, K., Santos, R., Wissoker, D.: Proceedings of the National Fire Services Data Summit (No. Technical Note (NIST TN)-1698) (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA

Personalised recommendations