Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24669188›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2014

Usability testing of a monitoring and feedback tool to stimulate physical activity.

Sanne van der Weegen, Renée Verwey, Huibert J Tange, Marieke D Spreeuwenberg, Luc P de Witte

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sanne van der WeegenDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands.
Renée VerweyDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands ; Research Centre Technology in Care, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Huibert J TangeDepartment of General Practice, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands.
Marieke D SpreeuwenbergDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands.
Luc P de WitteDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands ; Research Centre Technology in Care, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLZuyd University of Applied Sciences · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA MONITORING AND FEEDBACK TOOL TO STIMULATE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, CONSISTING OF AN ACTIVITY SENSOR, SMARTPHONE APPLICATION (APP), AND WEBSITE FOR PATIENTS AND THEIR PRACTICE NURSES, HAS BEEN DEVELOPED: the 'It's LiFe!' tool. In this study the usability of the tool was evaluated by technology experts and end users (people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or type 2 diabetes, with ages from 40-70 years), to improve the user interfaces and content of the tool. PATIENTS AND

methodsTHE STUDY HAD FOUR PHASES: 1) a heuristic evaluation with six technology experts; 2) a usability test in a laboratory by five patients; 3) a pilot in real life wherein 20 patients used the tool for 3 months; and 4) a final lab test by five patients. In both lab tests (phases 2 and 4) qualitative data were collected through a thinking-aloud procedure and video recordings, and quantitative data through questions about task complexity, text comprehensiveness, and readability. In addition, the post-study system usability questionnaire (PSSUQ) was completed for the app and the website. In the pilot test (phase 3), all patients were interviewed three times and the Software Usability Measurement Inventory (SUMI) was completed.

resultsAfter each phase, improvements were made, mainly to the layout and text. The main improvement was a refresh button for active data synchronization between activity sensor, app, and server, implemented after connectivity problems in the pilot test. The mean score on the PSSUQ for the website improved from 5.6 (standard deviation [SD] 1.3) to 6.5 (SD 0.5), and for the app from 5.4 (SD 1.5) to 6.2 (SD 1.1). Satisfaction in the pilot was not very high according to the SUMI. DISCUSSION: The use of laboratory versus real-life tests and expert-based versus user-based tests revealed a wide range of usability issues. The usability of the It's LiFe! tool improved considerably during the study.

Indexed as

accelerometrychronic obstructive pulmonary diseasediabetes mellitus type 2heuristic evaluationtelemonitoringthinking aloud

Identifiers

PMID24669188
PMCPMC3962312
OpenAlexW2049842781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.