ArticleAEM education and training2021
Website usability analysis of United States emergency medicine residencies.
Article in AEM education and training, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality and Usability Evaluation of U.S. Clinical Informatics Fellowship Websites.Applied clinical informatics · 2026Article
- What Can You Learn About Psychiatry Programs from Their Website? A Content Evaluation for Potential Applicants.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2024Article
- Structure and evaluation of preventive medicine residency programs' websites: A cross sectional analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- American Anesthesiology Residency Programs: Website Usability Analysis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Methodological Guidelines for Systematic Assessments of Health Care Websites Using Web Analytics: Tutorial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- An Analysis of US Academic Medical Center Websites: Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Website usability analysis of United States emergency medicine residencies.AEM education and training · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe Council of Residency Directors (CORD) in Emergency Medicine (EM) has recommended that all residency programs should conduct virtual interviews for the 2020 to 2021 application cycle due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While factors such as geographical region, city, program size, or hospital affiliation are not modifiable, EM residencies can bridge the information gap created by a lack of face-to-face interaction by representing themselves digitally. Measuring usability provides an objective method for EM residencies to improve their Web presence and effectively represent themselves to applicants.
methodsOur sample set included 55 U.S. EM residency program websites. Using methodology replicated from previous literature on health care website usability, we divided usability into four categories for quantifiable analysis:
resultsContent quality was the overall highest scoring category (mean ± SD = 5.4, SE = 0.33). The overall lowest performing category was technology (mean ± SD = 0.8 ± 0.09, SE = 0.01).
conclusionsMeasuring usability can help EM residency programs identify ways to improve their Web presence. To effectively promote their programs, residencies need quality content that communicates their key features. Our recommendation is for all residency programs to periodically perform website audits and apply the usability measures outlined to improve their digital presence, especially during times when face-to-face interactions will be limited.
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.