Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36262375›Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2022

Usability: An introduction to and literature review of usability testing for educational resources in radiation oncology.

Heather L Keenan, Simon L Duke, Heather J Wharrad, Gillian A Doody, Rakesh S Patel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A Comprehensive Approach to Responsible AI Development and Deployment.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Scholarship in radiation oncology education.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2023
    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

5 authors.

Heather L KeenanSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Simon L DukeSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Heather J WharradEducation Centre, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Gillian A DoodyEducation Centre, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Rakesh S PatelEducation Centre, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Usability, or the ease with which something can be used, is a key aspect in ensuring end-users can achieve the best possible outcomes from a given educational resource. Ideally usability testing should take place iteratively throughout the design of the resource, and there are several approaches for undertaking usability testing described in the wider literature. Within radiation oncology education, the extent to which usability testing occurs remains unclear. This literature review aimed to assess current practice and provide a practical introduction to usability testing for educational resource design within radiation oncology. Two web databases were searched for articles describing planned or completed usability testing during the design of a radiation oncology educational resource. Fifteen studies were identified. Data was gathered describing the type of usability testing performed, the number of cycles of testing and the number of test subjects. Articles described design of educational resources for both patients and trainees, with the number of test subjects ranging from 8 to 18. Various testing methods were used, including questionnaires, think aloud studies and heuristic evaluation. Usability testing comprised a range of single cycle through to several rounds of testing. Through illustrative examples identified in the literature review, we demonstrate that usability testing is feasible and beneficial for educational resources varying in size and context. In doing so we hope to encourage radiation oncologists to incorporate usability testing into future educational resource design.

Indexed as

EducationLearningOnlinePatientRadiotherapyUsability

Identifiers

PMID36262375
PMCPMC9574480

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.