Dataset Information

Agile, Easily Applicable, and Useful eHealth Usability Evaluations: Systematic Review and Expert-Validation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Electronic health (eHealth) usability evaluations of rapidly developed eHealth systems are difficult to accomplish because traditional usability evaluation methods require substantial time in preparation and implementation. This illustrates the growing need for fast, flexible, and cost-effective methods to evaluate the usability of eHealth systems. To address this demand, the present study systematically identified and expert-validated rapidly deployable eHealth usability evaluation methods.

Objective

Identification and prioritization of eHealth usability evaluation methods suitable for agile, easily applicable, and useful eHealth usability evaluations.

Methods

The study design comprised a systematic iterative approach in which expert knowledge was contrasted with findings from literature. Forty-three eHealth usability evaluation methods were systematically identified and assessed regarding their ease of applicability and usefulness through semi-structured expert interviews with 10 European usability experts and systematic literature research. The most appropriate eHealth usability evaluation methods were selected stepwise based on the experts' judgements of their ease of applicability and usefulness.

Results

Of these 43 eHealth usability evaluation methods identified as suitable for agile, easily applicable, and useful eHealth usability evaluations, 10 were recommended by the experts based on their usefulness for rapid eHealth usability evaluations. The three most frequently recommended eHealth usability evaluation methods were Remote User Testing, Expert Review, and Rapid Iterative Test and Evaluation Method. Eleven usability evaluation methods, such as Retrospective Testing, were not recommended for use in rapid eHealth usability evaluations.

Conclusion

We conducted a systematic review and expert-validation to identify rapidly deployable eHealth usability evaluation methods. The comprehensive and evidence-based prioritization of eHealth usability evaluation methods supports faster usability evaluations, and so contributes to the ease-of-use of emerging eHealth systems.

SUBMITTER: Sinabell I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8906994 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Agile, Easily Applicable, and Useful eHealth Usability Evaluations: Systematic Review and Expert-Validation.

Sinabell Irina I Ammenwerth Elske E

Applied clinical informatics 20220101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Electronic health (eHealth) usability evaluations of rapidly developed eHealth systems are difficult to accomplish because traditional usability evaluation methods require substantial time in preparation and implementation. This illustrates the growing need for fast, flexible, and cost-effective methods to evaluate the usability of eHealth systems. To address this demand, the present study systematically identified and expert-validated rapidly deployable eHealth usability eval ...[more]

PMID: 35263798

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundeHealth has the potential to improve outcomes such as physical activity or balance in older adults receiving geriatric rehabilitation. However, several challenges such as scarce evidence on effectiveness, feasibility, and usability hinder the successful implementation of eHealth in geriatric rehabilitation.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to assess evidence on the effectiveness, feasibility, and usability of eHealth interventions in older adults in geriatric rehabilitation.MethodsWe searched 7 databases for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, qualitative research, and mixed methods studies that applied eHealth interventions during geriatric rehabilitation. Included studies investigated a combination of effectiveness, usability, and feasibility of eHealth in older patients who received geriatric rehabilitation, with a mean age of ≥70 years. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and a narrative synthesis was conducted using a harvest plot.ResultsIn total, 40 studies were selected, with clinical heterogeneity across studies. Of 40 studies, 15 studies (38%) found eHealth was at least as effective as non-eHealth interventions (56% of the 27 studies with a control group), 11 studies (41%) found eHealth interventions were more effective than non-eHealth interventions, and 1 study (4%) reported beneficial outcomes in favor of the non-eHealth interventions. Of 17 studies, 16 (94%) concluded that eHealth was feasible. However, high exclusion rates were reported in 7 studies of 40 (18%). Of 40 studies, 4 (10%) included outcomes related to usability and indicated that there were certain aging-related barriers to cognitive ability, physical ability, or perception, which led to difficulties in using eHealth.ConclusionseHealth can potentially improve rehabilitation outcomes for older patients receiving geriatric rehabilitation. Simple eHealth interventions were more likely to be feasible for older patients receiving geriatric rehabilitation, especially, in combination with another non-eHealth intervention. However, a lack of evidence on usability might hamper the implementation of eHealth. eHealth applications in geriatric rehabilitation show promise, but more research is required, including research with a focus on usability and participation.

Project description:BackgroundGlobal demographic trends suggest that the incidence of both urinary and faecal incontinence will rise in the coming years, bringing significant health and economic implications for both patients and payers. There is limited organisational evidence to guide payers and providers about service configuration which will deliver efficient guideline-compliant, high-quality patient care.ObjectivesTo create, using evidence from a systematic review, qualitative data and expert consensus an internationally applicable service specification for continence care.MethodEvidence was obtained from a systematic and grey literature review of published randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies reporting efficacy of continence service design at the level of the community dwelling patient with either bladder or bowel incontinence, governmental reports and policy frameworks supplemented by data from 47 semi-structured interviews with clinicians, patients, patient-representatives and policy experts from four geographies broadly representative of different healthcare systems.ResultsA number of themes related to current and potential future organisation of continence care were identified from the data. A modular service specification with eight core components was created including case detection, initial assessment and treatment, case co-ordination, caregiver support, community-based support, specialist assessment and treatment, use of containment products, and use of technology. Within this framework important key recommendations are: ensure robust referral pathways, shift assessment for case coordination to nurses specializing in continence care, promote self-management and technology, use comprehensive assessment tools and service performance targets based on outcome and operational measures.ConclusionsThis study has defined practice gaps in the provision of continence services and described eight core components of a service specification for incontinence that commissioners and payers of health and social care could consider using to provide high-quality continence care. A shift towards a community-delivered, nurse-led model appears to be associated with clinical and cost-effective care for people with bladder and bowel incontinence.

Project description:Background and objectivesElectronic healthcare records have become central to patient care. Evaluation of new systems include a variety of usability evaluation methods or usability metrics (often referred to interchangeably as usability components or usability attributes). This study reviews the breadth of usability evaluation methods, metrics, and associated measurement techniques that have been reported to assess systems designed for hospital staff to assess inpatient clinical condition.MethodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, we searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Open Grey from 1986 to 2019. For included studies, we recorded usability evaluation methods or usability metrics as appropriate, and any measurement techniques applied to illustrate these. We classified and described all usability evaluation methods, usability metrics, and measurement techniques. Study quality was evaluated using a modified Downs and Black checklist.ResultsThe search identified 1336 studies. After abstract screening, 130 full texts were reviewed. In the 51 included studies 11 distinct usability evaluation methods were identified. Within these usability evaluation methods, seven usability metrics were reported. The most common metrics were ISO9241-11 and Nielsen's components. An additional "usefulness" metric was reported in almost 40% of included studies. We identified 70 measurement techniques used to evaluate systems. Overall study quality was reflected in a mean modified Downs and Black checklist score of 6.8/10 (range 1-9) 33% studies classified as "high-quality" (scoring eight or higher), 51% studies "moderate-quality" (scoring 6-7), and the remaining 16% (scoring below five) were "low-quality."ConclusionThere is little consistency within the field of electronic health record systems evaluation. This review highlights the variability within usability methods, metrics, and reporting. Standardized processes may improve evaluation and comparison electronic health record systems and improve their development and implementation.

Project description:BackgroundConsidering the changing landscape of internet use and rising ownership of digital technology by young people, new methods could be considered to improve the current model of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) management.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to evaluate the usability of eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) interventions currently available for young people living with JIA.MethodsThe PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were used to oversee this review. We systematically searched 15 databases for 252 potential studies; 2 authors independently screened all quantitative studies reporting the use of eHealth and mHealth interventions for young people (aged 1-18 years) diagnosed with JIA. Studies were excluded if they did not report outcome measures or were reviews, commentaries, or qualitative studies. Study methodological quality was scored using the Down and Black (modified) checklist. A narrative descriptive methodology was used to quantify the data because of heterogeneity across the studies.ResultsA total of 11 studies were included in this review, reporting 7 eHealth and mHealth interventions for young people (aged 4-18 years) living with JIA, targeting health issues such as pain, health-related quality of life, physical activity, and chronic disease self-management. The usability of the interventions was facilitated through training and ongoing support. The engagement was promoted by a combination of persuasive influences, and barriers preventing adherence were removed through personal reminders and flexible program schedules to cater to JIA and non-JIA illnesses or other commonly seen activities in childhood. The feedback obtained was that most young people and their parents liked the interventions.ConclusionsThe results of this review need to be considered cautiously because of the lack of rigorous testing and heterogeneity, which limits the detailed descriptions of data synthesis. Further research is needed to consider gender differences, associated costs, and the effectiveness of the interventions on health outcomes to better support young people living with JIA.

Dataset Information

Agile, Easily Applicable, and Useful eHealth Usability Evaluations: Systematic Review and Expert-Validation.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Agile, Easily Applicable, and Useful eHealth Usability Evaluations: Systematic Review and Expert-Validation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets