ArticleOnline journal of public health informatics2019
Usability Assessment of the Missouri Cancer Registry's Published Interactive Mapping Reports: Round Two.
Article in Online journal of public health informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review and comparative evaluation to develop and validate a comprehensive framework for cancer surveillance systems.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Pooled it
- Cardiomeds, an mHealth App for Self-Management to Support Swiss Patients With Heart Failure: 2-Stage Mixed Methods Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Usability Testing of a Patient-Centered Mobile Health App for Supporting and Guiding the Pediatric Emergency Department Patient Journey: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2022Article
- LionVu 2.0 Usability Assessment for Pennsylvania, United States.ISPRS international journal of geo-information · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth-related data's users have trouble understanding and interpreting combined statistical and mapping information. This is the second round of a usability study conducted after we modified and simplified our tested maps based on the first round's results.
objectiveTo explore if the tested maps' usability improved by modifying the maps according to the first round's results.
methodsWe recruited 13 cancer professionals from National American Central Cancer registries (NACCR) 2016 conference. The study involved three phases per participant: A pretest questionnaire, the multi-task usability test, and the System Usability Scale (SUS). Software was used to record the computer screen during the trial and the users' spoken comments. We measured several qualitative and quantitative usability metrics. The study's data was analyzed using spreadsheet software.
resultsIn the current study, unlike the previous round, there was no significant statistical relationship between the subjects' performance on the study test and the experience in GIS tools (
conclusionBy considering the round one's results and by updating our maps, we made the tested maps simpler to be used by subjects who have little experience in using GIS technology, and have little spatial and statistical knowledge.
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.