Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37488564›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2023

Evaluating the usability of a co-designed power assisted exercise graphical user interface for people with stroke.

Rachel Young, Karen Sage, David Broom, Andrew Hext, Nicky Snowdon, Christine Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 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
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

6 authors.

Rachel YoungDepartment of Allied Health Professions, Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, 2 Old Hall Road, Sheffield, S9 3TU, UK. r.young@shu.ac.uk.
Karen SageFaculty of Health and Education, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester Brooks Building, 53 Bonsall Street, Manchester, M15 6GX, UK.
David BroomCentre for Sport Exercise and Life Sciences, Institute of Health and Well-Being, Coventry University, Coventry, CV1 2DS, UK.
Andrew HextSports Engineering Research Group, Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, 2 Old Hall Road, Sheffield, S9 3TU, UK.
Nicky SnowdonCollege of Health, Wellbeing and Life Sciences, Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Crescent Campus, Sheffield, S10 2BP, UK.
Christine SmithAdvanced Wellbeing Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Crescent Campus, Sheffield, S10 2BP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital advancement of power assisted exercise equipment will advance exercise prescription for people with stroke (PwS). This article reports on the remote usability evaluation of a co-designed graphical user interface (GUI) and denotes an example of how video-conference software can increase reach to participants in the testing of rehabilitation technologies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usability of two sequential versions of the GUI.

methodsWe adopted a mixed methods approach. Ten professional user (PU) (2M/8F) and 10 expert user (EU) participants (2M/8F) were recruited. Data collection included a usability observation, a 'think aloud' walk through, task completion, task duration and user satisfaction as indicated by the Post Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ). Identification of usability issues informed the design of version 2 which included an additional submenu. Descriptive analysis was conducted upon usability issues and number of occurrences detected on both versions of the GUI. Inferential analysis enabled comparison of task duration and PSSUQ data between the PU and EU groups.

resultsAnalysis of the 'think aloud' walkthrough data enabled identification of 22 usability issues on version 1 from a total of 100 usability occurrences. Task completion for all tasks was 100%. Eight usability issues were directly addressed in the development of version 2. Two recurrent and 24 new usability issues were detected in version 2 with a total of 86 usability occurrences. Paired two tailed T-tests on task duration data indicated a significant decrease amongst the EU group for task 1.1 on version 2 (P = 0.03). The mean PSSUQ scores for version 1 was 1.44 (EU group) and 1.63 (PU group) compared with 1.40 (EU group) and 1.41 (PU group) for version 2.

conclusionsThe usability evaluation enabled identification of usability issues on version 1 of the GUI which were effectively addressed on the iteration of version 2. Testing of version 2 identified usability issues within the new submenu. Application of multiple usability evaluation methods was effective in identifying and addressing usability issues in the GUI to improve the experience of PAE for PwS. The use of video-conference software to conduct synchronous, remote usability testing is an effective alternative to face to face testing methods.

Indexed as

ExerciseStrokeExercise TherapyHumansSoftwareWalkingAssistive technologyCo-designGraphical user interfacePower assisted exerciseRehabilitation technologyStrokeUsability evaluation

Identifiers

PMID37488564
PMCPMC10364422

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.