Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34932015›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

An Analysis of US Academic Medical Center Websites: Usability Study.

Jonathan James Gale, Kameron Collin Black, Joshua David Calvano, Edwin Lauritz Fundingsland, Deborah Lai, Sara Silacci, Shuhan He

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Jonathan James GaleRocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Parker, CO, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3814-4697
Kameron Collin BlackRocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Parker, CO, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3696-4050
Joshua David CalvanoRocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Parker, CO, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3938-2336
Edwin Lauritz FundingslandRocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Parker, CO, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7100-7555
Deborah LaiDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2542-4793
Sara SilacciCenter for Innovation in Digital HealthCare, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7271-7145
Shuhan HeCenter for Innovation in Digital HealthCare, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9902-5077

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care organizations are tasked with providing web-based health resources and information. Usability refers to the ease of user experience on a website. In this study, we conducted a usability analysis of academic medical centers in the United States, which, to the best of our knowledge, has not been previously carried out.

objectiveThe primary aims of the study were to the following: (1) adapt a preexisting usability scoring methodology to academic medical centers; (2) apply and test this methodology on a sample set of academic medical center websites; and (3) make recommendations from these results on potential areas of improvements for our sample of academic medical center websites.

methodsAll website usability testing took place from June 1, 2020, to December 15, 2020. We replicated a methodology developed in previous literature and applied it to academic medical centers. Our sample included 73 US academic medical centers. Usability was split into four broad categories: accessibility (the ability of those with low levels of computer literacy to access and navigate the hospital's website); marketing (the ability of websites to be found through search engines and the relevance of descriptions to the links provided); content quality (grammar, frequency of information updates, material relevancy, and readability); and technology (download speed, quality of the programming code, and website infrastructure). Using these tools, we scored each website in each category. The composite of key factors in each category contributed to an overall "general usability" score for each website. An overall score was then calculated by applying a weighted percentage across all factors and was used for the final "overall usability" ranking.

resultsThe category with the highest average score was technology, with a 0.82 (SD 0.068, SE 0.008). The lowest-performing category was content quality, with an average of 0.22 (SD 0.069, SE 0.008). As these numbers reflect weighted percentages as an integer, the higher the score, the greater the overall usability in that category.

conclusionsOur data suggest that technology, on average, was the highest-scored variable among academic medical center websites. Because website functionality is essential to a user's experience, it is justified that academic medical centers invest in optimal website performance. The overall lowest-scored variable was content quality. A potential reason for this may be that academic medical center websites are usually larger in size, making it difficult to monitor the increased quantity of content. An easy way to improve this variable is to conduct more frequent website audits to assess readability, grammar, and relevance. Marketing is another area in which these organizations have potential for improvement. Our recommendation is that organizations utilize search engine optimization techniques to improve their online visibility and discoverability.

Indexed as

ComprehensionSearch EngineAcademic Medical CentersHumansInternetUnited Statesacademic medical centerdigital healthhealth care websiteusability testingweb crawlerwebsite usability

Identifiers

PMID34932015
PMCPMC8734930

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.