ArticleScientific reports2022
Remote synchronous usability testing of public access defibrillators during social distancing in a pandemic.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human Factors and Organizational Issues in Health Informatics: Review of Recent Developments and Advances.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- Remote Inclusion of Vulnerable Users in mHealth Intervention Design: Retrospective Case Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public access automated external defibrillators (AEDs) represent emergency medical devices that may be used by untrained lay-persons in a life-critical event. As such their usability must be confirmed through simulation testing. In 2020 the novel coronavirus caused a global pandemic. In order to reduce the spread of the virus, many restrictions such as social distancing and travel bans were enforced. Usability testing of AEDs is typically conducted in-person, but due to these restrictions, other usability solutions must be investigated. Two studies were conducted, each with 18 participants: (1) an in-person usability study of an AED conducted in an office space, and (2) a synchronous remote usability study of the same AED conducted using video conferencing software. Key metrics associated with AED use, such as time to turn on, time to place pads and time to deliver a shock, were assessed in both studies. There was no difference in time taken to turn the AED on in the in-person study compared to the remote study, but the time to place electrode pads and to deliver a shock were significantly lower in the in-person study than in the remote study. Overall, the results of this study indicate that remote user testing of public access defibrillators may be appropriate in formative usability studies for determining understanding of the user interface.
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.