Methodologies for Evaluating the Usability of Rehabilitation Technologies Aimed at Supporting Shared Decision-Making: Scoping Review.

Rehab Alhasani, Nicole George, Dennis Radman, Claudine Auger, Sara Ahmed
{"title":"Methodologies for Evaluating the Usability of Rehabilitation Technologies Aimed at Supporting Shared Decision-Making: Scoping Review.","authors":"Rehab Alhasani,&nbsp;Nicole George,&nbsp;Dennis Radman,&nbsp;Claudine Auger,&nbsp;Sara Ahmed","doi":"10.2196/41359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The field of rehabilitation has seen a recent rise in technologies to support shared decision-making (SDM). Usability testing during the design process of SDM technologies is needed to optimize adoption and realize potential benefits. There is variability in how usability is defined and measured. Given the complexity of usability, a thorough examination of the methodologies used to measure usability to develop the SDM technologies used in rehabilitation care is needed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review aims to answer the following research questions: which methods and measures have been used to produce knowledge about the usability of rehabilitation technologies aimed at supporting SDM at the different phases of development and implementation? Which parameters of usability have been measured and reported?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework. An electronic search was performed in the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from January 2005 up to November 2020. In total, 2 independent reviewers screened all retrieved titles, abstracts, and full texts according to the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. The International Organization for Standardization framework was used to define the scope of usability (effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction). The characteristics of the studies were outlined in a descriptive summary. Findings were categorized based on usability parameters, technology interventions, and measures of usability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 38 articles were included. The most common SDM technologies were web-based aids (15/33, 46%). The usability of SDM technologies was assessed during development, preimplementation, or implementation, using 14 different methods. The most frequent methods were questionnaires (24/38, 63%) and semistructured interviews (16/38, 42%). Satisfaction (27/38, 71%) was the most common usability parameter mapped to types of SDM technologies and usability evaluation methods. User-centered design (9/15, 60%) was the most frequently used technology design framework.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results from this scoping review highlight the importance and the complexity of usability evaluation. Although various methods and measures were shown to be used to evaluate the usability of technologies to support SDM in rehabilitation, very few evaluations used in the included studies were found to adequately span the selected usability domains. This review identified gaps in usability evaluation, as most studies (24/38, 63%) relied solely on questionnaires rather than multiple methods, and most questionnaires simply focused on the usability parameter of satisfaction. The consideration of end users (such as patients and clinicians) is of particular importance for the development of technologies to support SDM, as the process of SDM itself aims to improve patient-centered care and integrate both patient and clinician voices into their rehabilitation care.</p>","PeriodicalId":36224,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies","volume":"10 ","pages":"e41359"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10466154/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/41359","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The field of rehabilitation has seen a recent rise in technologies to support shared decision-making (SDM). Usability testing during the design process of SDM technologies is needed to optimize adoption and realize potential benefits. There is variability in how usability is defined and measured. Given the complexity of usability, a thorough examination of the methodologies used to measure usability to develop the SDM technologies used in rehabilitation care is needed.

Objective: This scoping review aims to answer the following research questions: which methods and measures have been used to produce knowledge about the usability of rehabilitation technologies aimed at supporting SDM at the different phases of development and implementation? Which parameters of usability have been measured and reported?

Methods: This review followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework. An electronic search was performed in the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from January 2005 up to November 2020. In total, 2 independent reviewers screened all retrieved titles, abstracts, and full texts according to the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. The International Organization for Standardization framework was used to define the scope of usability (effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction). The characteristics of the studies were outlined in a descriptive summary. Findings were categorized based on usability parameters, technology interventions, and measures of usability.

Results: A total of 38 articles were included. The most common SDM technologies were web-based aids (15/33, 46%). The usability of SDM technologies was assessed during development, preimplementation, or implementation, using 14 different methods. The most frequent methods were questionnaires (24/38, 63%) and semistructured interviews (16/38, 42%). Satisfaction (27/38, 71%) was the most common usability parameter mapped to types of SDM technologies and usability evaluation methods. User-centered design (9/15, 60%) was the most frequently used technology design framework.

Conclusions: The results from this scoping review highlight the importance and the complexity of usability evaluation. Although various methods and measures were shown to be used to evaluate the usability of technologies to support SDM in rehabilitation, very few evaluations used in the included studies were found to adequately span the selected usability domains. This review identified gaps in usability evaluation, as most studies (24/38, 63%) relied solely on questionnaires rather than multiple methods, and most questionnaires simply focused on the usability parameter of satisfaction. The consideration of end users (such as patients and clinicians) is of particular importance for the development of technologies to support SDM, as the process of SDM itself aims to improve patient-centered care and integrate both patient and clinician voices into their rehabilitation care.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
旨在支持共享决策的康复技术可用性评估方法:范围审查。
背景:康复领域最近出现了支持共同决策(SDM)的技术。需要在SDM技术的设计过程中进行可用性测试,以优化采用并实现潜在的好处。如何定义和衡量可用性存在可变性。鉴于可用性的复杂性,需要对用于测量可用性的方法进行彻底的检查,以开发用于康复护理的SDM技术。目的:本综述旨在回答以下研究问题:在发展和实施的不同阶段,哪些方法和措施被用于产生有关康复技术可用性的知识,以支持SDM ?哪些可用性参数已经被测量和报告?方法:本综述遵循Arksey和O'Malley框架。从2005年1月至2020年11月,在Ovid MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL和PsycINFO数据库中进行电子检索。共有2名独立审稿人根据纳入标准筛选所有检索到的标题、摘要和全文,并提取数据。国际标准化组织框架被用来定义可用性的范围(有效性、效率和满意度)。在一份描述性摘要中概述了这些研究的特点。结果根据可用性参数、技术干预和可用性度量进行分类。结果:共纳入38篇文献。最常见的SDM技术是基于网络的辅助工具(15/33,46%)。使用14种不同的方法,在开发、预实现或实现期间评估SDM技术的可用性。最常用的方法是问卷调查(24/38,63%)和半结构化访谈(16/38,42%)。满意度(27/ 38,71%)是映射到SDM技术类型和可用性评估方法的最常见可用性参数。以用户为中心的设计(9/15,60%)是最常用的技术设计框架。结论:这个范围审查的结果突出了可用性评估的重要性和复杂性。尽管各种方法和措施被用来评估支持SDM康复技术的可用性,但在所纳入的研究中发现,很少有评估能够充分跨越所选的可用性领域。这篇综述发现了可用性评估的差距,因为大多数研究(24/38,63%)只依赖于问卷调查,而不是多种方法,大多数问卷调查只关注满意度的可用性参数。考虑终端用户(如患者和临床医生)对于支持SDM的技术开发尤其重要,因为SDM过程本身旨在改善以患者为中心的护理,并将患者和临床医生的声音整合到他们的康复护理中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Navigation Training for Persons With Visual Disability Through Multisensory Assistive Technology: Mixed Methods Experimental Study. Mainstream Technologies in Facilities for People With Intellectual Disabilities: Multiple-Methods Study Using the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability Framework. Capabilities for Using Telemonitoring in Physiotherapy Treatment: Exploratory Qualitative Study. Integrated Approach Using Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making to Support Classifier Selection for Technology Adoption in Patients with Parkinson Disease: Algorithm Development and Validation. Multidisciplinary Home-Based Rehabilitation Program for Individuals With Disabilities: Longitudinal Observational Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1