ArticleScientific reports2025
Automated framework for comprehensive usability analysis of healthcare websites using web parsing.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the digital age, hospital websites are essential for providing healthcare information and services. This research introduces an automated tool, WUAHP, created in Python utilizing BeautifulSoup for HTML parsing. This facilitates the extraction of structural and content-based components essential for usability assessment. It assesses websites based on five principal criteria: Navigational efficiency, operational efficiency, accessibility, responsiveness & compatibility, and security-each subdivided into many sub-criteria. Each measure is evaluated on a scale from 0 (least desirable) to 1 (most ideal) utilizing normalized modules. The entropy weighting method is utilized to impartially allocate weights according to data variability. Usability scores are subsequently confirmed via user feedback and aligned with Nielsen's heuristic usability standards. The tool was utilized on fifty healthcare websites. The results indicated significant variability, with HW9 attaining the greatest usability score of 97% and HW39 the lowest at 12%. The ultimate usability scores varied from 12 to 97%, underscoring disparities in design efficacy. WUAHP provides web developers and healthcare providers with an effective method to assess and enhance website usability. The technology establishes a basis for future applications in training machine learning models for automated, large-scale website assessment.
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.