Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37279047›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Consensus on the Terms and Procedures for Planning and Reporting a Usability Evaluation of Health-Related Digital Solutions: Delphi Study and a Resulting Checklist.

Ana Isabel Martins, Gonçalo Santinha, Ana Margarida Almeida, Óscar Ribeiro, Telmo Silva, Nelson Rocha, Anabela G Silva

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

7 authors.

Ana Isabel MartinsCenter for Health Technology and Services Research, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5220-0528
Gonçalo SantinhaGovernance, Competitiveness and Public Policies, Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4732-5959
Ana Margarida AlmeidaDigital Media and Interaction Research Centre, Department of Communication and Art, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-7349-457X
Óscar RibeiroCenter for Health Technology and Services Research, Department of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-4740-7951
Telmo SilvaDigital Media and Interaction Research Centre, Department of Communication and Art, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-9383-7659
Nelson RochaInstitute of Electronics and Informatics Engineering of Aveiro, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3801-7249
Anabela G SilvaCenter for Health Technology and Services Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4386-5851

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsability evaluation both by experts and target users is an integral part of the process of developing and assessing digital solutions. Usability evaluation improves the probability of having digital solutions that are easier, safer, more efficient, and more pleasant to use. However, despite the widespread recognition of the importance of usability evaluation, there is a lack of research and consensus on related concepts and reporting standards.

objectiveThe aim of the study is to generate consensus on terms and procedures that should be considered when planning and reporting a study on a usability evaluation of health-related digital solutions both by users and experts and provide a checklist that can easily be used by researchers when conducting their usability studies.

methodsA Delphi study with 2 rounds was conducted with a panel of international participants experienced in usability evaluation. In the first round, they were asked to comment on definitions, rate the importance of preidentified methodological procedures using a 9-item Likert scale, and suggest additional procedures. In the second round, experienced participants were asked to reappraise the relevance of each procedure informed by round 1 results. Consensus on the relevance of each item was defined a priori when at least 70% or more experienced participants scored an item 7 to 9 and less than 15% of participants scored the same item 1 to 3.

resultsA total of 30 participants (n=20 females) from 11 different countries entered the Delphi study with a mean age of 37.2 (SD 7.7) years. Agreement was achieved on the definitions for all usability evaluation-related terms proposed (usability assessment moderator, participant, usability evaluation method, usability evaluation technique, tasks, usability evaluation environment, usability evaluator, and domain evaluator). A total of 38 procedures related to usability evaluation planning and reporting were identified across rounds (28 were related to usability evaluation involving users and 10 related to usability evaluation involving experts). Consensus on the relevance was achieved for 23 (82%) of the procedures related to usability evaluation involving users and for 7 (70%) of the usability evaluation procedures involving experts. A checklist was proposed that can guide authors when designing and reporting usability studies.

conclusionsThis study proposes a set of terms and respective definitions as well as a checklist to guide the planning and reporting of usability evaluation studies, constituting an important step toward a more standardized approach in the field of usability evaluation that may contribute to enhancing the quality of planning and reporting usability studies. Future studies can contribute to further validating this study work by refining the definitions, assessing the practical applicability of the checklist, or assessing whether using this checklist results in higher-quality digital solutions.

Indexed as

ChecklistUser-Computer InterfaceAdultDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansResearch DesignapplicabilityDelphi studydesigndevelopmentdigitalefficientevaluationprocessqualityreportingusabilityusability evaluationuseruser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID37279047
PMCPMC10282913

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.