ArticleApplied clinical informatics2016
Usability and Workflow Evaluation of "RhEumAtic Disease activitY" (READY). A Mobile Application for Rheumatology Patients and Providers.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methodological Quality of Manuscripts Reporting on the Usability of Mobile Applications for Pain Assessment and Management: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Mobile Health Apps for Self-Management of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Systematic Literature Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Professional-Facing Digital Health Technology for the Care of Patients With Chronic Pain: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Development and User Testing of a Dynamic Tool for Rheumatic Heart Disease Management.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- Impact of assessing patient-reported outcomes with mobile apps on patient-provider interaction.RMD open · 2021Observational
- Using Health Information Technology to Support Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatology.Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America · 2019Review
- Tools and Methods for Real-World Evidence Generation: Pragmatic Trials, Electronic Consent, and Data Linkages.Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America · 2019Review
- Nurses' Stress Associated with Nursing Activities and Electronic Health Records: Data Triangulation from Continuous Stress Monitoring, Perceived Workload, and a Time Motion Study.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2019Article
- Routine Use of Quantitative Disease Activity Measurements among US Rheumatologists: Implications for Treat-to-target Management Strategies in Rheumatoid Arthritis.The Journal of rheumatology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRhEumAtic Disease activitY (READY) is a mobile health (mHealth) application that aims to create a shared platform integrating data from both patients and physicians, with a particular emphasis on arthritis disease activity.
methodsWe made READY available on an iPad and pilot implemented it at a rheumatology outpatient clinic. We conducted 1) a usability evaluation study to explore patients' and physicians' interactions with READY, and 2) a time motion study (TMS) to observe the clinical workflow before and after the implementation.
resultsA total of 33 patients and 15 physicians participated in the usability evaluation. We found usability problems in navigation, data entry, pain assessment, documentation, and instructions along with error messages. Despite these issues, 25 (75,76%) patients reported they liked READY. Physicians provided mixed feedback because they were concerned about the impact of READY on clinical workflow. Six physicians participated in the TMS. We observed 47 patient visits (44.72 hours) in the pre-implementation phase, and 42 patient visits (37.82 hours) in the post-implementation phase. We found that patients spent more time on READY than paper (4.39mins vs. 2.26mins), but overall, READY did not delay the workflow (pre = 52.08 mins vs. post = 45.46 mins). This time difference may be compensated with READY eliminating a workflow step for the staff.
conclusionPatients preferred READY to paper documents. Many found it easier to input information because of the larger font size and the ease of 'tapping' rather than writing-out or circling answers. Even though patients spent more time on READY than using paper documents, the longer usage of READY was mainly due to when troubleshooting was needed. Most patients did not have problems after receiving initial support from the staff. This study not only enabled improvements to the software but also serves as good reference for other researchers or institutional decision makers who are interested in implementing such a technology.
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.