Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30137331›Full record

Observational studyJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2018

A web application to involve patients in the medication reconciliation process: a user-centered usability and usefulness study.

Sophie Marien, Delphine Legrand, Ravi Ramdoyal, Jimmy Nsenga, Gustavo Ospina, Valéry Ramon, Benoit Boland, Anne Spinewine

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors.

Sophie MarienLouvain Drug Research Institute, Clinical Pharmacy Research Group, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Delphine LegrandLouvain Drug Research Institute, Clinical Pharmacy Research Group, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Ravi RamdoyalCentre d'Excellence en Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication (CETIC), Charleroi, Belgium.
Jimmy NsengaCentre d'Excellence en Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication (CETIC), Charleroi, Belgium.
Gustavo OspinaCentre d'Excellence en Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication (CETIC), Charleroi, Belgium.
Valéry RamonCentre d'Excellence en Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication (CETIC), Charleroi, Belgium.
Benoit BolandGeriatric Medicine, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
Anne SpinewineLouvain Drug Research Institute, Clinical Pharmacy Research Group, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) can improve patient safety by resolving medication discrepancies. Because information technology (IT) and patient engagement are promising approaches to optimizing MedRec, the SEAMPAT project aims to develop a MedRec IT platform based on two applications: the "patient app" and the "MedRec app." This study evaluates three dimensions of the usability (efficiency, satisfaction, and effectiveness) and usefulness of the patient app. Methods: We performed a four-month user-centered observational study. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Participants completed the system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire and a second questionnaire on usefulness. Effectiveness was assessed by measuring the completeness of the medication list generated by the patient application and its correctness (ie medication discrepancies between the patient list and the best possible medication history). Qualitative data were collected from semi-structured interviews, observations and comments, and questions raised by patients. Results: Forty-two patients completed the study. Sixty-nine percent of patients considered the patient app to be acceptable (SUS Score ≥ 70) and usefulness was high. The medication list was complete for a quarter of the patients (7/28) and there was a discrepancy for 21.7% of medications (21/97). The qualitative data enabled the identification of several barriers (related to functional and non-functional aspects) to the optimization of usability and usefulness. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance and value of user-centered usability testing of a patient application implemented in "real-world" conditions. To achieve adoption and sustained use by patients, the app should meet patients' needs while also efficiently improving the quality of MedRec.

Indexed as

InternetPatient ParticipationUser-Computer InterfaceAdultData DisplayHumansInterviews as TopicMedication ReconciliationPatient SafetyPatient SatisfactionSoftwareSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID30137331
PMCPMC7646908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.