Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26537589›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2015

Redesigning printed educational materials for primary care physicians: design improvements increase usability.

Agnes Grudniewicz, Onil Bhattacharyya, K Ann McKibbon, Sharon E Straus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

4 authors.

Agnes GrudniewiczInstitute of Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, Canada. a.grudniewicz@mail.utoronto.ca.
Onil BhattacharyyaWomen's College Hospital, University of Toronto, 77 Grenville St, Toronto, ON, M5S 1B3, Office 217, Canada. onil.bhattacharyya@wchospital.ca.
K Ann McKibbonHealth Information Research Unit, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Room 137 Communications Research Laboratory, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. mckib@mcmaster.ca.
Sharon E StrausLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, 7th Floor, East Building, Toronto, ON, Canada. sharon.straus@utoronto.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrinted educational materials (PEMs) are a frequently used tool to disseminate clinical information and attempt to change behavior within primary care. However, their effect on clinician behavior is limited. In this study, we explored how PEMs can be redesigned to better meet the needs of primary care physicians (PCPs) and whether usability and selection can be increased when design principles and user preferences are used.

methodsWe redesigned a publicly available PEM using physician preferences, design principles, and graphic designer support. We invited PCPs to select their preferred document between the redesigned and original versions in a discrete choice experiment, followed by an assessment of usability with the System Usability Scale and a think aloud process. We conducted this study in both a controlled and opportunistic setting to determine whether usability testing results vary by study location. Think aloud data was thematically analyzed, and results were interpreted using the Technology Acceptance Model.

resultsOne hundred and eighty four PCPs participated in the discrete choice experiment at the 2014 Family Medicine Forum, a large Canadian conference for family physicians. Of these, 87.7 % preferred the redesigned version. Follow-up interviews were held with a randomly selected group of seven participants. We repeated this in a controlled setting in Toronto, Canada, with a set of 14 participants. Using the System Usability Scale, we found that usability scores were significantly increased with the redesign (p < 0.001). We also found that when PCPs were given the choice between the two versions, they selected the redesigned version as their preferred PEM more often than the original (p < 0.001). Results did not appear to differ between the opportunistic and controlled setting. We used the results of the think aloud process to add to a list of end user preferences developed in a previous study.

conclusionsWe found that redesigning a PEM with user preferences and design principles can improve its usability and result in the PEM being selected more often than the original. We feel this finding supports the involvement of the user, application of design principles, and the assistance of a graphic designer in the development of PEMs.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorInformation DisseminationPamphletsAdultCanadaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysicians, Primary Care

Identifiers

PMID26537589
PMCPMC4634785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.