ArticleMethods of information in medicine2017
A Randomized Trial Comparing Classical Participatory Design to VandAID, an Interactive CrowdSourcing Platform to Facilitate User-centered Design.
Article in Methods of information in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scoping review of needs for digital technology in co-creation: a health CASCADE study.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Improving Detection of Rapid Cystic Fibrosis Disease Progression-Early Translation of a Predictive Algorithm Into a Point-of-Care Tool.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2019Article
- Findings from the 2018 Yearbook Section on Human Factors and Organizational Issues.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly involvement of stakeholders in the design of medical software is particularly important due to the need to incorporate complex knowledge and actions associated with clinical work. Standard user-centered design methods include focus groups and participatory design sessions with individual stakeholders, which generally limit user involvement to a small number of individuals due to the significant time investments from designers and end users.
objectivesThe goal of this project was to reduce the effort for end users to participate in co-design of a software user interface by developing an interactive web-based crowdsourcing platform.
methodsIn a randomized trial, we compared a new web-based crowdsourcing platform to standard participatory design sessions. We developed an interactive, modular platform that allows responsive remote customization and design feedback on a visual user interface based on user preferences. The responsive canvas is a dynamic HTML template that responds in real time to user preference selections. Upon completion, the design team can view the user's interface creations through an administrator portal and download the structured selections through a REDCap interface.
resultsWe have created a software platform that allows users to customize a user interface and see the results of that customization in real time, receiving immediate feedback on the impact of their design choices. Neonatal clinicians used the new platform to successfully design and customize a neonatal handoff tool. They received no specific instruction and yet were able to use the software easily and reported high usability.
conclusionsVandAID, a new web-based crowdsourcing platform, can involve multiple users in user-centered design simultaneously and provides means of obtaining design feedback remotely. The software can provide design feedback at any stage in the design process, but it will be of greatest utility for specifying user requirements and evaluating iterative designs with multiple options.
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.