Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32616602›Full record

ArticleHospital pediatrics2020

Codesign and Usability Testing of a Mobile Application to Support Family-Delivered Enteral Tube Care.

Christie F Cheng, Nicole E Werner, Nadia Doutcheva, Gemma Warner, Hanna J Barton, Michelle M Kelly, Mary L Ehlenbach, Teresa Wagner, Sara Finesilver, Barbara J Katz and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hospital pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Designing for caregiving networks: a case study of primary caregivers of children with medical complexity.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Co-Design with Patients for Improving Patient Safety: Strategies, Barriers and pitfalls.Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ... Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Annual meeting · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Christie F ChengDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Public Health.
Nicole E WernerDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, and.
Nadia DoutchevaDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, and.
Gemma WarnerDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Public Health.
Hanna J BartonDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, and.
Michelle M KellyDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Public Health.
Mary L EhlenbachDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Public Health.
Teresa WagnerAmerican Family Children's Hospital, University of Wisconsin Health, Madison, Wisconsin; and.
Sara FinesilverDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Public Health.
Barbara J KatzFamily Voices of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Carrie NachtDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Public Health.
Ryan J CollerDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Public Health, rcoller@pediatrics.wisc.edu.
Faculty of Public Health · GBIndustrial Systems and Control (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USUniversity of Wisconsin Health · US

Funding

University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR002373 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ELIZABETH S BURNSIDE, Allan R. Brasier · 2017 to 2026
$75.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnteral tubes are prevalent among children with medical complexity (CMC), and complications can lead to costly health care use. Our objective was to design and test the usability of a mobile application (app) to support family-delivered enteral tube care.

methodsHuman-centered design methods (affinity diagramming, persona development, and software development) were applied with family caregivers of CMC to develop a prototype. During 3 waves of usability testing with design refinement between waves, screen capture software collected user-app interactions and inductive content analysis of narrative feedback identified areas for design improvement. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index and the System Usability Scale quantified mental workload and ease of use.

resultsDesign participants identified core app functions, including displaying care routines, reminders, tracking inventory and health data, caregiver communication, and troubleshooting. Usability testing participants were 80% non-Hispanic white, 28% lived in rural settings, and 20% had not completed high school. Median years providing enteral care was 2 (range 1-14). Design iterations improved app function, simplification, and user experience. The mean System Usability Scale score was 76, indicating above-average usability. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index revealed low mental demand, frustration, and effort. All 14 participants reported that they would recommend the app, and that the app would help with organization, communication, and caregiver transitions.

conclusionsUsing a human-centered codesign process, we created a highly usable mobile application to support enteral tube caregiving at home. Future work involves evaluating the feasibility of longitudinal use and effectiveness in improving self-efficacy and reduce device complications.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsChildHumansUnited StatesUser-Centered DesignUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID32616602
PMCPMC7385811
OpenAlexW3038816632

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.