Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34020640›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

User knowledge factors that hinder the design of new home healthcare devices: investigating thirty-eight devices and their manufacturers.

Fan Yang, Abdullah Al Mahmud, Tao Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Fan YangGuangzhou Academy of Fine Arts, Guangzhou, China. antony4d@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2549-3828
Abdullah Al MahmudSwinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Tao WangGuangzhou Academy of Fine Arts, Guangzhou, China.
Guangzhou Academy of Fine Arts · CNSwinburne University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe demand for home healthcare devices arises; however, many home healthcare devices on the market are not designed to reflect the needs and features of the end-users. This study explored the user knowledge factors that hindered the design of new home healthcare devices and the interrelationships between the factors.

methodsThe abovementioned factors were identified from analysing the project documents of thirty-eight carefully selected home healthcare devices produced by five manufacturers; followed by interviewing the thirty stakeholders playing key roles in developing the devices.

resultsThe design of the home healthcare devices was influenced by (1) the user insights utilised in formulating project strategies; (2) the sources of user information; (3) the execution of user research; and (4) the formulation of the manufacturers' principal innovation processes.

conclusionsThe users' characteristics and needs were not sufficiently reflected in developing new home healthcare devices. One root cause was that the end-users were not perceived by the manufacturers as a key success factor in most cases, given that most of the devices were initiated following the public sector's requests. Actual or potential applications of this study include the facilitation of the appropriate application of human factors methods in developing new home healthcare devices and the improvement of the user performance of the end-devices.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesDelivery of Health CareHumansHome health care deviceMedical devices and technologiesProduct designUsabilityUser performance

Identifiers

PMID34020640
PMCPMC8139000
OpenAlexW3118798959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.