ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2017
Comparison of heuristic and cognitive walkthrough usability evaluation methods for evaluating health information systems.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07390071 (Multimodal Telerehabilitation in Patients Undergoing CAR-T Cell Immunotherapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Multimodal Telerehabilitation in Patients Undergoing CAR-T Cell Immunotherapy
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Usability evaluation methods for hospital information systems: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Agile, Easily Applicable, and Useful eHealth Usability Evaluations: Systematic Review and Expert-Validation.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Pooled it
- Development and Usability of a Social Determinants of Health Dashboard in School-based Health.Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN · 2026Article
- Optimizing HIV Care Engagement: Usability of a mHealth App for Identifying and Retaining Individuals with Nonviral Suppression in Digital Cohort.Applied clinical informatics · 2026Article
- Comprehensive usability evaluation of electronic prescription systems: integrating expert and user perspectives.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Assessing oral surgery residents' competencies and training needs in tomography interfaces through a usability framework.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- A heuristic evaluation of a pharmacy surveillance information system.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Fostering Patient-Clinician Communication to Promote Rapid HIV, Hepatitis B Virus, and Hepatitis C Virus Diagnostic Testing: Conceptual Development of a Multilingual App.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Learning Designers as Expert Evaluators of Usability: Understanding Their Potential Contribution to Improving the Universality of Interface Design for Health Resources.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Clinical research staff perceptions on a natural language processing-driven tool for eligibility prescreening: An iterative usability assessment.International journal of medical informatics · 2023Article
- Evaluating the usability of a cancer registry system using Cognitive Walkthrough, and assessing user agreement with its problems.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Co-design of the Transgender Health Information Resource: Web-Based Participatory Design.Journal of participatory medicine · 2023Article
- Usability of the IDDEAS prototype in child and adolescent mental health services: A qualitative study for clinical decision support system development.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Comparison of usability evaluation methods for a health information system: heuristic evaluation versus cognitive walkthrough method.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Moderated digital social therapy for young people with emerging mental health problems: A user-centered mixed-method design and usability study.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- Evaluating the usability of a national health information system with heuristic method.Journal of education and health promotion · 2022Article
- Promoting HIV, Hepatitis B Virus, and Hepatitis C Virus Screening Among Migrants With a Language Barrier: Protocol for the Development and Evaluation of an Electronic App (Apidé).JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- User testing of a diagnostic decision support system with machine-assisted chart review to facilitate clinical genomic diagnosis.BMJ health & care informatics · 2021Article
- Nurses' experiences and viewpoints about the benefits of adopting information technology in health care: a qualitative study in Iran.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Online Guide for Electronic Health Evaluation Approaches: Systematic Scoping Review and Concept Mapping Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere are several user-based and expert-based usability evaluation methods that may perform differently according to the context in which they are used. The objective of this study was to compare 2 expert-based methods, heuristic evaluation (HE) and cognitive walkthrough (CW), for evaluating usability of health care information systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive evaluators independently evaluated a medical office management system using HE and CW. We compared the 2 methods in terms of the number of identified usability problems, their severity, and the coverage of each method.
resultsIn total, 156 problems were identified using the 2 methods. HE identified a significantly higher number of problems related to the "satisfaction" attribute ( P = .002). The number of problems identified using CW concerning the "learnability" attribute was significantly higher than those identified using HE ( P = .005). There was no significant difference between the number of problems identified by HE, based on different usability attributes ( P = .232). Results of CW showed a significant difference between the number of problems related to usability attributes ( P < .0001). The average severity of problems identified using CW was significantly higher than that of HE ( P < .0001).
conclusionThis study showed that HE and CW do not differ significantly in terms of the number of usability problems identified, but they differ based on the severity of problems and the coverage of some usability attributes. The results suggest that CW would be the preferred method for evaluating systems intended for novice users and HE for users who have experience with similar systems. However, more studies are needed to support this finding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.