ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
Mapping the landscape of standardized usability questionnaires in healthcare: a 26-year scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The evaluation of healthcare technologies utilizing standardized usability questionnaires has grown exponentially, reflecting the increasing importance of user-centered design in eHealth. However, the application of these instruments remains fragmented across clinical specialties and target populations. Objective: This scoping review synthesizes 26 years of literature to examine how standardized usability questionnaires are applied across distinct use cases, healthcare specialties, and target populations to identify current methodological gaps. Methods: A search in MEDLINE/PubMed was conducted for articles published between 1999 and June 2025. Studies employing standardized usability questionnaires for evaluating healthcare technologies were included. Data regarding publication year, the specific usability instrument employed, target population, healthcare specialty, and application domain were extracted and analyzed descriptively. Results: The search yielded 1,342 peer-reviewed articles. The publication volume showed a substantial upward trend, peaking in 2024 with 256 studies. The System Usability Scale (SUS) was the dominant instrument utilized in 92.8 percent of the publications. The Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) was the second-most common instrument applied in 6.0 percent of studies. Internal Medicine and Public Health were the most prominent clinical fields. Mobile Apps and Web Tools constituted the most frequently targeted systems, accounting for 41.4 percent. Patients and healthcare professionals represented the primary user groups. Conclusions: While publication volumes have surged, the field relies heavily on the SUS, limiting the ability to extract diagnostic insights. To ensure that future healthcare technologies are specifically optimized for complex clinical environments, researchers must mature beyond global satisfaction scores and strategically adopt established, comprehensive tools like the PSSUQ.
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.