Erik K Fromme1, Tawni Kenworthy-Heinige, Michelle Hribar. 1. Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., L586, Portland, OR 97239, USA. frommee@ohsu.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In order to be practically useful, computer applications for patients with cancer must be easily usable by people with limited computer literacy and impaired vision or dexterity. We describe the usability development process for an application that collects quality of life and symptom information from patients with cancer. METHODS: Usability testing consisted of user testing with cancer patients to identify initial design problems and a survey to compare the computer application's ease of use between elderly and younger patients. RESULTS: In user-testing phase, seven men aged 56 to 77 with prostate cancer were observed using the application and interviewed afterwards identifying several usability concerns. Sixty patients with breast, gastrointestinal, or prostate cancer participated in the ease of use survey, with 40% (n=24) aged 65 or older. Younger patients reported significantly higher scores than elderly patients (14.0 vs. 10.8, p = .001), even when prior computer and touch screen use was controlled. CONCLUSION: Elderly users reported lower ease of use scores than younger users; however, their average rating was quite high-10.8 on a scale of -16 to +16. It may be unrealistic to expect elderly or less computer literate users to rate any application as positively as younger, more computer savvy users-perhaps it is enough that they rate the application positively and can use it without undue difficulties. We hope that our process can serve as a model for how to bridge the fields of computer usability and healthcare.
BACKGROUND: In order to be practically useful, computer applications for patients with cancer must be easily usable by people with limited computer literacy and impaired vision or dexterity. We describe the usability development process for an application that collects quality of life and symptom information from patients with cancer. METHODS: Usability testing consisted of user testing with cancerpatients to identify initial design problems and a survey to compare the computer application's ease of use between elderly and younger patients. RESULTS: In user-testing phase, seven men aged 56 to 77 with prostate cancer were observed using the application and interviewed afterwards identifying several usability concerns. Sixty patients with breast, gastrointestinal, or prostate cancer participated in the ease of use survey, with 40% (n=24) aged 65 or older. Younger patients reported significantly higher scores than elderly patients (14.0 vs. 10.8, p = .001), even when prior computer and touch screen use was controlled. CONCLUSION: Elderly users reported lower ease of use scores than younger users; however, their average rating was quite high-10.8 on a scale of -16 to +16. It may be unrealistic to expect elderly or less computer literate users to rate any application as positively as younger, more computer savvy users-perhaps it is enough that they rate the application positively and can use it without undue difficulties. We hope that our process can serve as a model for how to bridge the fields of computer usability and healthcare.
Authors: Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Erik K Fromme; Emma B Holliday; Lillian M Nail; Karen S Lyons; Michelle R Hribar; Charles R Thomas Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Annette Eidam; Anja Roth; Eduard Frick; Michael Metzner; Anette Lampert; Hanna M Seidling; Walter E Haefeli; Jürgen M Bauer Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2022-07-23 Impact factor: 2.314
Authors: Martin W Schoen; Ethan Basch; Lori L Hudson; Arlene E Chung; Tito R Mendoza; Sandra A Mitchell; Diane St Germain; Paul Baumgartner; Laura Sit; Lauren J Rogak; Marwan Shouery; Eve Shalley; Bryce B Reeve; Maria R Fawzy; Nrupen A Bhavsar; Charles Cleeland; Deborah Schrag; Amylou C Dueck; Amy P Abernethy Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2018-07-16