Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30173402›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2019

Usability testing of EirV3-a computer-based tool for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer.

Hilde Krogstad, Stine Marie Sundt-Hansen, Marianne Jensen Hjermstad, Liv Ågot Hågensen, Stein Kaasa, Jon Håvard Loge, Sunil X Raj, Aslak Steinsbekk, Kari Sand

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hilde KrogstadEuropean Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. hilde.krogstad@ntnu.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2514-8154
Stine Marie Sundt-HansenEuropean Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Marianne Jensen HjermstadEuropean Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Liv Ågot HågensenCoordination Unit Orkdal Region, Orkdal, Norway.
Stein KaasaEuropean Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Jon Håvard LogeEuropean Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Sunil X RajEuropean Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Aslak SteinsbekkDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Kari SandEuropean Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology · NOOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEir version 3 (V3) is an electronic tool for administration of patient-reported outcome measures (Eir-Patient) that immediately presents patient scores on the physician's computer (Eir-Doctor). Perceived usability is an important determinant for successful implementation. The aim of this study was to answer the following research question evaluated at the cancer outpatient clinics, in the patients' home, and at general practitioners' (GPs) offices: What are the number, type, and severity of usability issues evaluated by the patient (Eir-Patient module) and by the physician (Eir-Doctor module)?

methodsA usability evaluation using observations, think-aloud sessions, individual interviews and focus group interviews in cancer patients and their physicians was conducted. Identified usability issues were graded on a severity scale from 1 (irritant) to 4 (unusable).

resultsOverall, 73 Eir registrations were performed by 37 patients, and used by 17 physicians in clinical consultations. All patients were able to complete the Eir-Patient symptom registration. Seventy-two usability issues were identified. None of them were graded as unusable. For the Eir-Patient module, 62% of the identified usability issues was graded as irritant (grade 1), 18% as moderate (grade 2), and 20% as severe (grade 3). For the Eir-Doctor module, 46% of the identified usability issues were graded as irritant, 36% as moderate and 18% as severe.

conclusionsIn the updated Eir version, issues in the severe and moderate categories have been changed, to optimize the usability of using real-time PROMs in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresUser-Computer InterfaceAgedComputersElectronic Health RecordsFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient-Centered CarePhysiciansElectronic patient-reported outcomesFeasibilityPatient-reported outcome measuresPROMsUsability

Identifiers

PMID30173402
OpenAlexW2889405941

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.