...
首页> 外文期刊>International journal of medical informatics >Assessing usability of eHealth technology: A comparison of usability benchmarking instruments
【24h】

Assessing usability of eHealth technology: A comparison of usability benchmarking instruments

机译:评估电子健康技术的可用性:可用性基准仪器的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: It is generally assumed that usability benchmarking instruments are technology agnostic. The same methods for usability evaluations are used for digital commercial, educational, governmental and healthcare systems. However, eHealth technologies have unique characteristics. They need to support patient's health, provide treatment or monitor progress. Little research is done on the effectiveness of different benchmarks (qualitative and quantitative) within the eHealth context.Objectives: In this study, we compared three usability benchmarking instruments (logging task performance, think aloud and the SUS, the System Usability Scale) to assess which metric is most indicative of usability in an eHealth technology. Also, we analyzed how these outcome variables (task completion, system usability score, serious and critical usability issues) interacted with the acceptance factors Perceived benefits, Usefulness and Intention to use.Methods: A usability evaluation protocol was set up that incorporated all three benchmarking methods. This protocol was deployed among 36 Dutch participants and across three different eHealth technologies: a gamified application for older adults (N = 19), an online tele-rehabilitation portal for healthcare professionals (N = 9), and a mobile health app for adolescents (N = 8).Results: The main finding was that task completion, compared to the SUS, had stronger correlations with usability benchmarks. Also, serious and critical issues were stronger correlated to task metrics than the SUS. With regard to acceptance factors, there were no significant differences between the three usability benchmarking instruments.Conclusions: With this study, we took a first step in examining how to improve usability evaluations for eHealth. The results show that listing usability issues from think aloud protocols remains one of the most effective tools to explain the usability for eHealth. Using the SUS as a stand-alone usability metric for eHealth is not recommended. Preferably, the SUS should be combined with task metrics, especially task completion. We recommend to develop a usability benchmarking instrument specifically for eHealth.
机译:背景:通常假设可用性基准仪器是技术不可知的。相同的可用性评估方法用于数字商业,教育,政府和医疗系统。然而,电子医疗技术具有独特的特征。他们需要支持患者的健康,提供治疗或监测进展。关于eHealth Conteured中不同基准(定性和定量)的有效性的研究。目的:在本研究中,我们将三个可用性基准仪器(伐木任务表现,大声思考和SUS,系统可用性规模)进行了评估哪些指标最重要的是电子健康技术中可用性。此外,我们分析了这些结果变量(任务完成,系统可用性分数,严重和关键可用性问题)与接受因素感知,有用和使用意图相互作用。方法:建立了可用性评估协议,该协议包含所有三个基准测试方法。该协议在36名荷兰人参与者中部署,跨越三种不同的电子健康技术:用于老年人的赌博申请(n = 19),是医疗保健专业人员(n = 9)的在线电话康复门户,以及青少年的移动健康应用程序( n = 8).Results:主要发现是与SUS相比,任务完成与可用性基准有更强烈的相关性。此外,严重和关键问题与任务指标强烈相关,而不是SUS。关于验收因素,三个可用性基准仪器之间没有显着差异。结论:通过这项研究,我们迈出了初步研究如何提高电子健康的可用性评估。结果表明,思考大声协议的列表可用性问题仍然是解释电子医疗可用性的最有效工具之一。不建议使用SUS作为eHealth的独立可用性度量标准。优选地,SUS应与任务指标组合,尤其是任务完成。我们建议为eHealth开发专为eHealth的可用性基准仪器。

著录项

  • 来源
  • 作者单位

    Roessingh Res & Dev Roessinghsbleekweg 33b NL-7522 AH Enschede Netherlands|Univ Twente Fac Elect Engn Math & Comp Sci EEMCS Biomed Signals & Syst Enschede Netherlands;

    Roessingh Res & Dev Roessinghsbleekweg 33b NL-7522 AH Enschede Netherlands|Univ Twente Fac Elect Engn Math & Comp Sci EEMCS Biomed Signals & Syst Enschede Netherlands;

    Roessingh Res & Dev Roessinghsbleekweg 33b NL-7522 AH Enschede Netherlands|Univ Twente Fac Elect Engn Math & Comp Sci EEMCS Biomed Signals & Syst Enschede Netherlands;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    eHealth; Usability benchmarking; Think aloud; SUS; Usability task metrics; Evaluation;

    机译:eHealth;可用性基准;大声思考;SUS;可用性任务指标;评估;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号