ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Usability Evaluation of the Revised
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Effectiveness of a Technology-Based Psychosocial Empowerment Program for Children With Cancer and Their Parents in Home-Based Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Psycho-oncology · 2026Trial
- Advancing foundational models in digital health technology adoption: A systematic literature review of multidisciplinary factors.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe
methodsGuided by the Technology Acceptance Model and principles of user-centered design, this study supported refinements to the
resultsFourteen children (median age 8.5 years; range 6-12) and 14 parents (median age 38.5 years; range 34-49) participated in one of three usability evaluation cycles. After the third cycle, children and parents navigated the app and completed key tasks independently. Median TAM-PUS scores were 6 (range 6-8), indicating high perceived usefulness. Qualitative analyses indicated that children regarded the app as easy and fun to use. Parents emphasized the app's developmental relevance for their child and for themselves as the child's caregiver.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the revised
Indexed as
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.