ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
Comparison of usability evaluation methods for a health information system: heuristic evaluation versus cognitive walkthrough method.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Usability evaluation methods for hospital information systems: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- User involvement in the design and development of medical devices in epilepsy: A systematic review.Epilepsia open · 2024Pooled it
- Electronic community health information system usability evaluation in Ethiopia.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- User-Centered Design of an Electronic Dashboard for Monitoring Facility-Level Basic Emergency Obstetric Care Readiness in Amhara, Ethiopia: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Implementation of an information system for tuberculosis in healthcare facilities in Indonesia: evaluation of its effectiveness and challenges.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- A heuristic evaluation of a pharmacy surveillance information system.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Examining nurses' awareness level and compliance between defined and required access levels to core functionalities of hospital information system : an observational and survey study.BMC health services research · 2024Observational
- Mobile Application for Tracking Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder: Content Validation and Usability.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Prospective Validation and Usability Evaluation of a Mobile Diagnostic App for Obstructive Sleep Apnea.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Usability of Standards for Scaffolding in a Health Sciences Programme: A feasibility Study.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Evaluating the usability of a cancer registry system using Cognitive Walkthrough, and assessing user agreement with its problems.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are differences of opinion regarding the selection of the most practical usability evaluation method among different methods. The present study aimed to compare two expert-based evaluation methods in order to assess a nursing module as the most widely used module of a Hospital Information System (HIS).
methodsFive independent evaluators used the Heuristic Evaluation (HE) and Cognitive Walkthrough (CW) methods to evaluate the nursing module of Shafa HIS. In this regard, the number and severity of the recognized problems according to the usability attributes were compared using two evaluation methods.
resultsThe HE and CW evaluation methods resulted in the identification of 104 and 24 unique problems, respectively, of which 33.3% of recognized problems in the CW evaluation method overlapped with the HE method. The average severity of the recognized problems was considered to be minor (2.34) in the HE method and major (2.77) in the CW evaluation method. There was a significant difference in terms of the total number and average severity of the recognized problems by these methods (P < 0.001). Based on the usability attribute, the HE method identified a larger number of problems concerning all usability attributes, and a significant difference was observed in terms of the number of recognized problems in both methods for all attributes except 'memorability'. Also, there was a significant difference between the two methods based on the average severity of recognized problems only in terms of 'learnability'.
conclusionThe HE method identified more problems with lower average severity while the CW was able to recognize fewer problems with higher average severity. Regarding the evaluation goal, the HE method was able to be used to improve the effectiveness and satisfaction of the HIS. Furthermore, the CW evaluation method is recommended to identify usability problems with the highest average severity, especially in terms of 'learnability'.
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.