ArticleElectronic physician2018
Usability evaluation of obstetrics and gynecology information system using cognitive walkthrough method.
Article in Electronic physician, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 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
- 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
- Article
- Clinical decision support for intervention reduction in neonatal patients: A usability assessment.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimObstetrics and gynecology information system is a critical component of the HIS in social security organization health centers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the usability of this system using the cognitive walkthrough method. Also, the present study provided a detailed formal description of how the cognitive usability evaluation can be applied and reported for a health care information system.
methodsThis study was conducted at the Mashhad University of Medical Sciences' usability lab from March 2016 to June 2017. A two-phase approach was used to conduct the cognitive walkthrough evaluation: preparatory and evaluation. The preparation was done in three stages: first, we investigated users' capabilities and background knowledge through a semi-structured interview. Second, the evaluation scenario was developed based on the most common tasks in routine workflow of users. Finally, each task was broken down into sequences of actions. In the evaluation phase, three usability experts independently assessed each action using a four-item checklist. Problems were categorized thematically and were reported from three different perspectives: Question-based, Task-based, and Evaluator-based. The data were then analyzed to understand the contribution of each task, along with its mean severity score.
resultsEvaluators' responses were compared and any conflict was resolved in an expert panel. A total of 116 usability problems were identified based on the consensus of the evaluators. Inadequate system feedback was found to be the main source of 43% of the problems, and resulted in users confusion.
conclusionSince the system was evaluated in its pilot implementation phase, there was an opportunity to prevent future potential usability problems. The use of a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach in this usability study provided a more comprehensive perspective of the system problems. This study provided a detailed description of conducting CW usability evaluation which can be used as a practical guide for future studies.
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.