ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Automated Workflow for Usability Audits in the PHR Realm.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Teleworking is an everyday reality in today's world. Many companies are opting for this way of working remotely, as it improves employers' satisfaction along with the work-life balance and it does not lead to any significant reduction in performance. In general, the comfortable use of software applications is a priority, and quality aspects such as usability are of vital importance. In this paper, a novel workflow is proposed. It consists of the following components: (1) a tool to manage usability evaluations based on expert reviews, called Usevalia; (2) a set of heuristics to be considered when performing the evaluations; (3) a catalogue of usability requirements to guide the evaluations; (4) a checklist related to the heuristics to verify that the evaluations have been performed correctly by all the auditors; and (5) a set of tasks to know in advance the functionality of the applications to be audited. Personal health records (PHRs) were taken as a case study. This methodology made it possible to involve a total of 31 working groups that evaluated the usability of four PHRs. Concerning the main results, the evaluators agreed that with Usevalia the usability evaluations could go a step further because they are coordinated and can work together remotely. In addition, analyses of usability scores provided insight into current proposals for improving usability of applications.
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.