Seth Wolpin1, Mark Stewart. 1. Department of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Systems, University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle, WA 98195-7266, USA. swolpin@uw.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many technologies intended for patient use are never developed or evaluated with principles of user-centered design. In this review, we explore different approaches to assessing usability and acceptability, drawn from selected exemplar studies in the health sciences literature. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed research manuscripts were selected from Medline and other data sources accessible through pubmed.gov. We also present a framework for developing patient-centered technologies that we recently employed. CONCLUSION: While there are studies using principles of user-centered design, many more do not report formative usability testing results and may only report post-hoc satisfaction surveys. Consequently, adoption by user groups may be limited. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: We encourage nurses in practice to look for and examine usability testing results before considering implementation of any patient-centered technology.
OBJECTIVES: Many technologies intended for patient use are never developed or evaluated with principles of user-centered design. In this review, we explore different approaches to assessing usability and acceptability, drawn from selected exemplar studies in the health sciences literature. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed research manuscripts were selected from Medline and other data sources accessible through pubmed.gov. We also present a framework for developing patient-centered technologies that we recently employed. CONCLUSION: While there are studies using principles of user-centered design, many more do not report formative usability testing results and may only report post-hoc satisfaction surveys. Consequently, adoption by user groups may be limited. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: We encourage nurses in practice to look for and examine usability testing results before considering implementation of any patient-centered technology.
Authors: Donna L Berry; Brent A Blumenstein; Barbara Halpenny; Seth Wolpin; Jesse R Fann; Mary Austin-Seymour; Nigel Bush; Bryant T Karras; William B Lober; Ruth McCorkle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Seth Wolpin; Donna Berry; Mary Austin-Seymour; Nigel Bush; Jesse R Fann; Barbara Halpenny; William B Lober; Ruth McCorkle Journal: Comput Inform Nurs Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Lindsey Reichlin; Nithya Mani; Kara McArthur; Amy M Harris; Nithin Rajan; Clifford C Dacso Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: S E Wolpin; B Halpenny; G Whitman; J McReynolds; M Stewart; W B Lober; D L Berry Journal: Health Informatics J Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Jeanne Carter; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Sally Saban; Ling Y Chen; Andrew J Vickers; Amy L Tin; Gabriela Billanti; Nicole A Connors; Vance Broach; Carol L Brown; Dennis S Chi; Ginger J Gardner; Deborah J Goldfrank; Elizabeth L Jewell; Mario M Leitao; Kara C Long Roche; Jennifer J Mueller; Yukio Sonoda; Oliver Zivanovic Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2022-02
Authors: Udit Singhal; Ted A Skolarus; John L Gore; Matthew G Parry; Ronald C Chen; Julie Nossiter; Alan Paniagua-Cruz; Arvin K George; Paul Cathcart; Jan van der Meulen; Daniela A Wittmann Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 16.430
Authors: Andrea L Hartzler; Jason P Izard; Bruce L Dalkin; Sean P Mikles; John L Gore Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-08-09 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Flory L Nkoy; Bryan L Stone; Bernhard A Fassl; Karmella Koopmeiners; Sarah Halbern; Eun H Kim; Justin Poll; Joseph W Hales; Dillon Lee; Christopher G Maloney Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2012-11-03