ArticleBMJ open2025
Assessing a visual editor for healthcare questionnaires based on the fast healthcare interoperability resources (FHIR) standard: protocol for a cross-sectional, mixed-methods usability evaluation using eye-tracking and retrospective think-aloud.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Designing a Web-Based Case Repository for Values Education in Early Clinical Exposure: A Conceptual Framework and Development Blueprint.Paediatric anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Towards precision medicine in Tourette syndrome: a perspective on AI-driven predictive modelling and personalised care.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigitalisation in healthcare has resulted in fragmented solutions and limited interoperability. The Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard is increasingly adopted to enable standardised data exchange, yet its complexity creates usability challenges for clinicians and developers. To address these challenges, this study evaluates the usability of an enhanced FHIR Questionnaire Resource Editor designed to improve workflow efficiency, accessibility and user satisfaction in creating and managing healthcare questionnaires. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-methods usability evaluation will recruit 10 healthcare professionals and/or informatics experts via convenience sampling. The study will consist of four general phases: (1) an initial session to familiarise users with the tool; (2) a task analysis phase supported by eye-tracking to identify strengths and weaknesses; (3) retrospective think-aloud interviews to explore strategies used during tasks and (4) completion of a validated usability questionnaire, such as the System Usability Scale, to quantify user satisfaction. We will analyse quantitative data using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative feedback will be examined through thematic analysis and affinity mapping. The primary outcome is to assess the editor's usability and accessibility and to identify areas for improvement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol has been reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty at the University of Würzburg (ethikkommission@uni-wuerzburg.de) under approval number (24/24-sc). All participants will provide informed consent. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and open-access platforms to inform future iterations of FHIR-based tools.
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.