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