Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29563074›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

A Mobile App (BEDSide Mobility) to Support Nurses' Tasks at the Patient's Bedside: Usability Study.

Frederic Ehrler, Thomas Weinhold, Jonathan Joe, Christian Lovis, Katherine Blondon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Adopting mobile health applications by nurses: a scoping review.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Frederic EhrlerDivision of Medical Information Sciences, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9734-3242
Thomas WeinholdDivision of Medical Information Sciences, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0085-2102
Jonathan JoeBiomedical & Health Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5030-7161
Christian LovisDivision of Medical Information Sciences, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2681-8076
Katherine BlondonDepartment of General Internal Medicine, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9407-8516

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe introduction of clinical information systems has increased the amount of clinical documentation. Although this documentation generally improves patient safety, it has become a time-consuming task for nurses, which limits their time with the patient. On the basis of a user-centered methodology, we have developed a mobile app named BEDSide Mobility to support nurses in their daily workflow and to facilitate documentation at the bedside.

objectiveThe aim of the study was to assess the usability of the BEDSide Mobility app in terms of the navigation and interaction design through usability testing.

methodsNurses were asked to complete a scenario reflecting their daily work with patients. Their interactions with the app were captured with eye-tracking glasses and by using the think aloud protocol. After completing the tasks, participants filled out the system usability scale questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize task completion rates and the users' performance.

resultsA total of 10 nurses (aged 21-50) participated in the study. Overall, they were satisfied with the navigation, layout, and interaction design of the app, with the exception of one user who was unfamiliar with smartphones. The problems identified were related to the ambiguity of some icons, the navigation logic, and design inconsistency.

conclusionsBesides the usability issues identified in the app, the participants' results do indicate good usability, high acceptance, and high satisfaction with the developed app. However, the results must be taken with caution because of the poor ecological validity of the experimental setting.

Indexed as

clinical information systemmobile healthusability testing

Identifiers

PMID29563074
PMCPMC5885064

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.