Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34730543›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

Usability Evaluation of an Offline Electronic Data Capture App in a Prospective Multicenter Dementia Registry (digiDEM Bayern): Mixed Method Study.

Michael Reichold, Miriam Heß, Peter Kolominsky-Rabas, Elmar Gräßel, Hans-Ulrich Prokosch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Internet-Based Psychological Interventions during SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An Experience in South of Italy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Michael ReicholdDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0118-0969
Miriam HeßDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5410-9314
Peter Kolominsky-RabasInterdisciplinary Center for Health Technology Assessment and Public Health (IZPH), Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7168-058X
Elmar GräßelCenter for Health Services Research in Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9009-5351
Hans-Ulrich ProkoschDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6200-753X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital registries have been shown to provide an efficient way of gaining a better understanding of the clinical complexity and long-term progression of diseases. The paperless method of electronic data capture (EDC) during a patient interview saves both time and resources. In the prospective multicenter project "Digital Dementia Registry Bavaria (digiDEM Bayern)," interviews are also performed on site in rural areas with unreliable internet connectivity. It must be ensured that EDC can still be performed in such a context and that there is no need to fall back on paper-based questionnaires. In addition to a web-based data collection solution, the EDC system REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) offers the option to collect data offline via an app and to synchronize it afterward.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the usability of the REDCap app as an offline EDC option for a lay user group and to examine the necessary technology acceptance of using mobile devices for data collection. The feasibility of the app-based offline data collection in the digiDEM Bayern dementia registry project was then evaluated before going live.

methodsAn exploratory mixed method design was employed in the form of an on-site usability test with the "Thinking Aloud" method combined with an online questionnaire including the System Usability Scale (SUS). The acceptance of mobile devices for data collection was surveyed based on five categories of the technology acceptance model.

resultsUsing the "Thinking Aloud" method, usability issues were identified and solutions were accordingly derived. Evaluation of the REDCap app resulted in a SUS score of 74, which represents "good" usability. After evaluating the technology acceptance questionnaire, it can be concluded that the lay user group is open to mobile devices as interview tools.

conclusionsThe usability evaluation results show that a lay user group generally agree that data collecting partners in the digiDEM project can handle the REDCap app well. The usability evaluation provided statements about positive aspects and could also identify usability issues relating to the REDCap app. In addition, the current technology acceptance in the sample showed that heterogeneous groups of different ages with diverse experiences in handling mobile devices are also ready for the use of app-based EDC systems. Based on these results, it can be assumed that the offline use of an app-based EDC system on mobile devices is a viable solution for collecting data in a decentralized registry-based research project.

Indexed as

dementiadigital healthelectronic data collectionevaluationmobile appmobile deviceofflineregistryusabilityusability testing

Identifiers

PMID34730543
PMCPMC8600440

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.