Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42145324›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Digital work tools in occupational health care: A cross-sectional survey of usability and usefulness among occupational health professionals in Finland.

Sari Nissinen, Pauliina Toivio, Erja Sormunen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sari NissinenFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8696-434X
Pauliina ToivioFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5759-8156
Erja SormunenFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0146-5753

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To examine occupational health care professionals' experiences of the usability and usefulness of digital work tools (customer portals) and identify factors associated with these perceptions. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among OHC professionals in Finland (n = 95). Usability was assessed using 14 statements based on Nielsen's dimensions, and usefulness with 15 statements derived from the Technology Acceptance Model. Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, and non-parametric tests to explore associations with background factors. Results: Usability was generally rated positively, particularly in terms of ease of use, clarity of information presentation and data security. Usefulness was considered highest for supporting collaboration and speeding up service delivery, but the portals do not appear to sufficiently support obtaining an overall picture of work ability and working conditions, nor the monitoring of agreed measures. Good user skills and satisfaction with use were strongly associated with higher ratings (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Customer portals support individual-level collaboration effectively but require development to strengthen workplace-level information management. Enhancing functionalities and addressing user needs across professional groups are essential for improving the customer portals' role in occupational health care professionals.

Indexed as

customer portalsdigital toolsoccupational healthusabilityusefulness

Identifiers

PMID42145324
PMCPMC13172705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.