ArticleHuman-Computer Interaction. Theoretical Approaches and Design Methods : Thematic Area, HCI 2022, Held as Part of the 24th HCI International Conference, HCII 2022, Virtual Event, June 26-July 1, 2022, Proceedings, Part I
A Coding Framework for Usability Evaluation of Digital Health Technologies.
Article in Human-Computer Interaction. Theoretical Approaches and Design Methods : Thematic Area, HCI 2022, Held as Part of the 24th HCI International Conference, HCII 2022, Virtual Event, June 26-July 1, 2022, Proceedings, Part I. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and evaluation of a clinical note summarization system using large language models.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- iACT4IBD: a randomised controlled trial of a brief online intervention based on acceptance and commitment therapy to improve wellbeing for adults with inflammatory bowel disease.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Co-Creation in the Development of Digital Therapeutics: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
- Comparison of health technology assessments for digital therapeutics in Germany, the United Kingdom and France.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several studies have reported low adherence and high resistance from clinicians to adopt digital health technologies into clinical practice, particularly the use of computer-based clinical decision support systems. Poor usability and lack of integration with the clinical workflow have been identified as primary issues. Few guidelines exist on how to analyze the collected data associated with the usability of digital health technologies. In this study, we aimed to develop a coding framework for the systematic evaluation of users' feedback generated during focus groups and interview sessions with clinicians, underpinned by fundamental usability principles and design components. This codebook also included a coding category to capture the user's clinical role associated with each specific piece of feedback, providing a better understanding of role-specific challenges and perspectives, as well as the level of shared understanding across the multiple clinical roles. Furthermore, a voting system was created to quantitatively inform modifications of the digital system based on usability data. As a use case, we applied this method to an electronic cognitive aid designed to improve coordination and communication in the cardiac operating room, showing that this framework is feasible and useful not only to better understand suboptimal usability aspects, but also to recommend relevant modifications in the design and development of the system from different perspectives, including clinical, technical, and usability teams. The framework described herein may be applied in other highly complex clinical settings, in which digital health systems may play an important role in improving patient care and enhancing patient safety.
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.