ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Electronic maternal and child health application usability, feasibility and acceptability among healthcare providers in Amhara region, Ethiopia.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of eHealth intervention (ADHERE) on adherence to partograph and WHO safe childbirth checklist in intrapartum care: implementation research in Ethiopia.Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Implementation research logic model in the design and execution of eHealth innovations for maternal and newborn healthcare in Ethiopia.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An innovative electronic Maternal and Child Health (eMCH) application was developed to support operational and clinical decision-making in maternal and child health services. End-user-based evaluation of eHealth application is a critical step to ascertain how successfully users can learn and use it, and improve the technology. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the eMCH tool usability, feasibility, and acceptability among healthcare providers (HCPs) in the Amhara region, Ethiopia. A cross-sectional study was conducted among HCPs working in six public healthcare facilities. The usability evaluation was done on 24 HCPs across three professional categories using the ISO 9241-11 usability guideline. One hundred nine HCPs were participated in the feasibility and acceptability study. Data were collected using a standard usability tool, think-aloud protocol, a self-administered approach, and Open Broadcaster Software Studio version 26.1.1 video recorder. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to measure the association between mean scores and categories of HCPs. The recorded videos were used for the log file analysis method. None of the HCP categories were able to complete all the tasks without errors. The average number of errors and restarts were 7.5 and 2.8, respectively. The average number of restarts was directly proportional to the average number of errors. The participants successfully completed more than 70% of the tasks without requiring any assistance or guidance. Forty-seven comments or errors were identified from the think-aloud analysis and 22 comments from the usability metrics analysis. Overall, statistically significant performance differences were observed among the three HCP groups across the majority of the usability evaluation metrics. Fifty-seven percent of HCPs scored higher than the mean on the feasibility study. Slightly higher than half, 56 (51.4%), of the HCPs scored higher than the mean score on the acceptability study. The usability evaluation identified vital comments and usability flaws that were essential for the eMCH tool to be upgraded. The tool was feasible and acceptable as reported by end-users. Therefore, the errors and usability flaws of the tool should be fixed before deployment to other healthcare settings.
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.