Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37368487›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Evaluation of the EsteR Toolkit for COVID-19 Decision Support: Sensitivity Analysis and Usability Study.

Rieke Alpers, Lisa Kühne, Hong-Phuc Truong, Hajo Zeeb, Max Westphal, Sonja Jäckle

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rieke Alpers *Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine MEVIS, Bremen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8317-1435
Lisa Kühne *Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7103-7658
Hong-Phuc TruongFraunhofer Institute for Industrial Mathematics ITWM, Kaiserslautern, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6495-053X
Hajo ZeebDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7509-242X
Max WestphalFraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine MEVIS, Bremen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8488-758X
Sonja JäckleFraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine MEVIS, Lübeck, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2908-299X
Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine · DELeibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS · DEFraunhofer Institute for Industrial Mathematics · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, local health authorities were responsible for managing and reporting current cases in Germany. Since March 2020, employees had to contain the spread of COVID-19 by monitoring and contacting infected persons as well as tracing their contacts. In the EsteR project, we implemented existing and newly developed statistical models as decision support tools to assist in the work of the local health authorities.

objectiveThe main goal of this study was to validate the EsteR toolkit in two complementary ways: first, investigating the stability of the answers provided by our statistical tools regarding model parameters in the back end and, second, evaluating the usability and applicability of our web application in the front end by test users.

methodsFor model stability assessment, a sensitivity analysis was carried out for all 5 developed statistical models. The default parameters of our models as well as the test ranges of the model parameters were based on a previous literature review on COVID-19 properties. The obtained answers resulting from different parameters were compared using dissimilarity metrics and visualized using contour plots. In addition, the parameter ranges of general model stability were identified. For the usability evaluation of the web application, cognitive walk-throughs and focus group interviews were conducted with 6 containment scouts located at 2 different local health authorities. They were first asked to complete small tasks with the tools and then express their general impressions of the web application.

resultsThe simulation results showed that some statistical models were more sensitive to changes in their parameters than others. For each of the single-person use cases, we determined an area where the respective model could be rated as stable. In contrast, the results of the group use cases highly depended on the user inputs, and thus, no area of parameters with general model stability could be identified. We have also provided a detailed simulation report of the sensitivity analysis. In the user evaluation, the cognitive walk-throughs and focus group interviews revealed that the user interface needed to be simplified and more information was necessary as guidance. In general, the testers rated the web application as helpful, especially for new employees.

conclusionsThis evaluation study allowed us to refine the EsteR toolkit. Using the sensitivity analysis, we identified suitable model parameters and analyzed how stable the statistical models were in terms of changes in their parameters. Furthermore, the front end of the web application was improved with the results of the conducted cognitive walk-throughs and focus group interviews regarding its user-friendliness.

Indexed as

COVID-19decision support toolpublic healthsensitivity analysisusability studyweb application

Identifiers

PMID37368487
PMCPMC10337391
OpenAlexW4376612861

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.