ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Combining theory and usability testing to inform optimization and implementation of an online primary care depression management tool.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 'Ottawa Depression Algorithm' is an evidence-based online tool developed to support primary care professionals care for adults with depression. Uptake of such tools require provider behaviour change. Identifying issues which may impact use of an innovation in routine practice (i.e. barriers to and enablers of behaviour change) informs the selection of implementation strategies that can be deployed with the tool to support use. However, established theory-informed barriers/enablers assessment methods may be less well suited to identifying issues with tool usability. User testing methods can help to determine whether the tool itself is optimally designed. We aimed to integrate these two methodological approaches to i) identify issues impacting the usability of algorithm; and ii) identify barriers to and enablers of algorithm use in routine practice.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care professionals in Ottawa, Canada. To evaluate usability, participants used a written patient scenario to work through the algorithm while verbalizing their thoughts ('Think Aloud'). Participants were then asked about factors influencing algorithm use in routine practice (informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework). We used the codebook approach to thematic analysis to assign statements to pre-specified codes and develop themes pertaining to usability and routine use.
resultsWe interviewed 20 professionals from seven practices. Usability issues were summarised within five themes: Optimizing content and flow to align with issues faced in practice, Enhancing the most useful algorithm components, Interactivity of the algorithm and embedded tools, Clarity of presence, purpose, or function of components, and Navigational challenges and functionality of links. Barriers to and enablers of routine use were summarised within five themes: Getting to know the algorithm, Alignment with roles and pathways of influence, Integration with current ways of working, Contexts for use, and Anticipated benefits and concerns about patient communication.
conclusionsWhilst the Ottawa Depression Algorithm was viewed as a useful tool, specific usability issues and barriers to use were identified. Supplementing a theory-based barriers/enablers assessment with usability testing provided enhanced insights to inform optimization and implementation of this clinical tool. We have provided a methods guide for others who may wish to apply this approach.
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.