Beyond Words: Enhancing Clinical Guideline Comprehension With Icons.

IF 3.8 4区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY Open Forum Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2024-10-23 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1093/ofid/ofae637
Isin Y Comba, John C O'Horo, Joel E Gordon, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Matthew M Moore, Rebecca L Morgan, Reem A Mustafa, Adarsh Bhimraj
{"title":"Beyond Words: Enhancing Clinical Guideline Comprehension With Icons.","authors":"Isin Y Comba, John C O'Horo, Joel E Gordon, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Matthew M Moore, Rebecca L Morgan, Reem A Mustafa, Adarsh Bhimraj","doi":"10.1093/ofid/ofae637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework is widely applied in clinical guidelines to facilitate transparent evidence evaluation. While developing Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines on the management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), panel members suggested developing and implementing a visual aid to enable quicker identification of key information by providers at bedside seeking guidance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a mixed-methods study evaluating the usability of a newly designed infographic/icon using a survey and focus groups. The survey incorporated a simulated COVID-19 IDSA guideline with and without the icon, followed by comprehension questions. Focus group discussions provided qualitative feedback on the GRADE methodology and icon usability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey was returned by 289 health care providers. There was no statistical difference in the correct response rates between icon-aided and non-icon-aided guideline questions (McNemar's chi-square test, <i>P</i> > .1 for both questions). Interactions with the icon notably increased the time taken and number of clicks required to respond to the first question (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, <i>P</i> < .01). In contrast, response time did not differ between versions for the second question (<i>P</i> = .38). Most subjects (85%) indicated that the icon improved the readability of the guidelines. A focus group follow-up suggested alternative designs for the icon.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlights the promise of iconography in clinical guidelines, although the specific icons tested did not measurably improve usability metrics. Future research should focus on icon design and testing within a formal usability framework, considering the impact of GRADE language on user experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":19517,"journal":{"name":"Open Forum Infectious Diseases","volume":"11 11","pages":"ofae637"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11551224/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Forum Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofae637","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework is widely applied in clinical guidelines to facilitate transparent evidence evaluation. While developing Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines on the management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), panel members suggested developing and implementing a visual aid to enable quicker identification of key information by providers at bedside seeking guidance.

Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study evaluating the usability of a newly designed infographic/icon using a survey and focus groups. The survey incorporated a simulated COVID-19 IDSA guideline with and without the icon, followed by comprehension questions. Focus group discussions provided qualitative feedback on the GRADE methodology and icon usability.

Results: The survey was returned by 289 health care providers. There was no statistical difference in the correct response rates between icon-aided and non-icon-aided guideline questions (McNemar's chi-square test, P > .1 for both questions). Interactions with the icon notably increased the time taken and number of clicks required to respond to the first question (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < .01). In contrast, response time did not differ between versions for the second question (P = .38). Most subjects (85%) indicated that the icon improved the readability of the guidelines. A focus group follow-up suggested alternative designs for the icon.

Conclusions: This study highlights the promise of iconography in clinical guidelines, although the specific icons tested did not measurably improve usability metrics. Future research should focus on icon design and testing within a formal usability framework, considering the impact of GRADE language on user experience.

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
超越文字:用图标加强临床指南的理解。
背景:建议、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)框架被广泛应用于临床指南,以促进透明的证据评估。在制定美国传染病学会(IDSA)2019年冠状病毒疾病患者管理指南(COVID-19)时,专家组成员建议开发并实施一种可视化辅助工具,以便在床边寻求指导的医护人员能够更快地识别关键信息:我们开展了一项混合方法研究,通过调查和焦点小组对新设计的信息图/图标的可用性进行评估。调查包括有图标和无图标的模拟 COVID-19 IDSA 指南,然后是理解问题。焦点小组讨论提供了有关 GRADE 方法和图标可用性的定性反馈:共有 289 名医疗服务提供者返回了调查问卷。图标辅助和非图标辅助指南问题的正确回答率没有统计学差异(McNemar 的卡方检验,两个问题的 P > .1)。与图标的交互明显增加了回答第一个问题所需的时间和点击次数(Wilcoxon 符号秩检验,P < .01)。相比之下,不同版本对第二个问题的回答时间没有差异(P = .38)。大多数受试者(85%)表示,图标提高了指南的可读性。焦点小组的后续活动建议对图标进行其他设计:本研究强调了图标设计在临床指南中的应用前景,尽管测试的特定图标并未显著改善可用性指标。未来的研究应侧重于图标设计,并在正式的可用性框架内进行测试,同时考虑 GRADE 语言对用户体验的影响。
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
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
630
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Forum Infectious Diseases provides a global forum for the publication of clinical, translational, and basic research findings in a fully open access, online journal environment. The journal reflects the broad diversity of the field of infectious diseases, and focuses on the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice, with a particular emphasis on knowledge that holds the potential to improve patient care in populations around the world. Fully peer-reviewed, OFID supports the international community of infectious diseases experts by providing a venue for articles that further the understanding of all aspects of infectious diseases.
期刊最新文献
Enterovirus D68: Genomic and Clinical Comparison of 2 Seasons of Increased Viral Circulation and Discrepant Incidence of Acute Flaccid Myelitis-Maryland, USA. Adverse Events Reported During Weekly Isoniazid-Rifapentine (3HP) Tuberculosis Preventive Treatment Among People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Uganda. Does 23-Valent Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccination Decrease All-Cause Mortality? Remote Practice of Infectious Diseases Through Telemedicine: Improving Access for Patients and Appeal for Physicians. Early Mortality and Health Care Costs in Patients Recently Diagnosed With Kaposi Sarcoma at the National Cancer Institute, Mexico City.
×
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