ArticleJMIR human factors2021
Usability of a Co-designed eHealth Prototype for Caregivers: Combination Study of Three Frameworks.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Centering Equity During Health Technology Innovation: Scoping Review of Methods and Research Adjustments to Promote Inclusive Coproduction.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Optimizing Participant Engagement in Cyberhealth Co-Design: Course-of-Action Framework Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Usability and User Experience Testing of a Co-Designed Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes App ("MyPal for Adults") for Palliative Cancer Care: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCo-design (or the participation of users) has shown great potential in the eHealth domain, demonstrating positive results. Nevertheless, the co-design approach cannot guarantee the usability of the system designed, and usability assessment is a complex analysis to perform, as evaluation criteria will differ depending on the usability framework (or set of criteria) used. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) on usability (ISO 9241-210), Nielsen heuristic, and Garrett element of user experience inform different yet complementary aspects of usability.
objectiveThis study aims to assess the usability and user experience of a co-design prototype by combining 3 complementary frameworks.
methodsTo help caregivers provide care for functionally impaired older people, an eHealth tool was co-designed with caregivers, health and social service professionals, and community workers assisting caregivers. The prototype was a website that aims to support the help-seeking process for caregivers (finding resources) and allow service providers to advertise their services (offering resources). We chose an exploratory study method to assess usability in terms of each objective. The first step was to assess users' first impressions of the website. The second was a task scenario with a think-aloud protocol. The final step was a semistructured interview. All steps were performed individually (with a moderator) in a single session. The data were analyzed using 3 frameworks.
resultsA total of 10 participants were recruited, 5 for each objective of the website. We were able to identify several usability problems, most of which were located in the information design and interface design dimensions (Garrett framework). Problems in both dimensions were mainly coded as effectiveness and efficiency (ISO framework) and error prevention and match between the systemand the real world (Nielsen heuristic).
conclusionsOur study provided a novel contribution about usability analysis by combining the 3 different models to classify the problems found. This combination provided a holistic understanding of the usability improvements needed. It can also be used to analyze other eHealth products. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/11634.
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.