ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018
Usability of a Personal Air Pollution Monitor: Design-Feedback Iterative Cycle Study.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using low-cost sensors and GPS to assess spatiotemporal variations in personal exposure to PMEnvironmental research · 2025Article
- Assessment of aerosol persistence in ICUs via low-cost sensor network and zonal models.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Miniaturizing Wet Scrubbers for Aerosolized Droplet Capture.Analytical chemistry · 2021Article
- Methodology for Addressing Infectious Aerosol Persistence in Real-Time Using Sensor Network.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
- Excitation Emission Matrix Fluorescence Spectroscopy for Combustion Generated Particulate Matter Source Identification.Atmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is considerable evidence that exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution is associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes. However, true exposure-outcome associations are hampered by measurement issues, including compliance and exposure misclassification.
objectiveThis paper describes the use of the design-feedback iterative cycle to improve the design and usability of a new portable PM2.5 monitor for use in an epidemiologic study of personal air pollution measures.
methodsIn total, 10 adults carried on their person a prefabricated PM2.5 monitor for 1 week over 3 waves of the iterative cycle. At the end of each wave, they participated in a 30-minute moderated focus group and completed 2 validated questionnaires on usability and views on research. The topics addressed included positives and negatives of the monitor, charging and battery life, desired features, and changes to the monitor from each previous wave. They also completed a log to record device wear time each day. The log also provided space to record any issues that may have arisen with the device or for general comments during the week of collection.
resultsThe major focus group topics included device size, noise, battery and charge time, and method for carrying the device. These topics formed the basis of iterative design changes; by the final cycle, the device was reasonably smaller, quieter, held a longer charge, and was more convenient to carry. System usability scores improved systematically across each wave (median scores of 50-66 on a 100-point scale), as did median daily wear time (approximately 749-789 minutes).
conclusionsBoth qualitative and quantitative measures showed an improvement in device usability over the 3 waves. This study demonstrates how the design-feedback iterative cycle can be used to improve the usability of devices manufactured for use in large epidemiologic studies on personal air pollution exposures.
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.