Vanessa E C Sousa1, Karen Dunn Lopez. 1. Vanessa E. C. Sousa, PhD, MSN, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Nursing, Department of Health Systems Science, 845 South Damen St., Chicago, IL 60612, Email: vanessaemille@gmail.com, Phone: 773-814-0517.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of e-health can lead to several positive outcomes. However, the potential for e-health to improve healthcare is partially dependent on its ease of use. In order to determine the usability for any technology, rigorously developed and appropriate measures must be chosen. OBJECTIVES: To identify psychometrically tested questionnaires that measure usability of e-health tools, and to appraise their generalizability, attributes coverage, and quality. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies that measured usability of e-health tools using four databases (Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, and HAPI). Non-primary research, studies that did not report measures, studies with children or people with cognitive limitations, and studies about assistive devices or medical equipment were systematically excluded. Two authors independently extracted information including: questionnaire name, number of questions, scoring method, item generation, and psychometrics using a data extraction tool with pre-established categories and a quality appraisal scoring table. RESULTS: Using a broad search strategy, 5,558 potentially relevant papers were identified. After removing duplicates and applying exclusion criteria, 35 articles remained that used 15 unique questionnaires. From the 15 questionnaires, only 5 were general enough to be used across studies. Usability attributes covered by the questionnaires were: learnability (15), efficiency (12), and satisfaction (11). Memorability (1) was the least covered attribute. Quality appraisal showed that face/content (14) and construct (7) validity were the most frequent types of validity assessed. All questionnaires reported reliability measurement. Some questionnaires scored low in the quality appraisal for the following reasons: limited validity testing (7), small sample size (3), no reporting of user centeredness (9) or feasibility estimates of time, effort, and expense (7). CONCLUSIONS: Existing questionnaires provide a foundation for research on e-health usability. However, future research is needed to broaden the coverage of the usability attributes and psychometric properties of the available questionnaires.
BACKGROUND: The use of e-health can lead to several positive outcomes. However, the potential for e-health to improve healthcare is partially dependent on its ease of use. In order to determine the usability for any technology, rigorously developed and appropriate measures must be chosen. OBJECTIVES: To identify psychometrically tested questionnaires that measure usability of e-health tools, and to appraise their generalizability, attributes coverage, and quality. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies that measured usability of e-health tools using four databases (Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, and HAPI). Non-primary research, studies that did not report measures, studies with children or people with cognitive limitations, and studies about assistive devices or medical equipment were systematically excluded. Two authors independently extracted information including: questionnaire name, number of questions, scoring method, item generation, and psychometrics using a data extraction tool with pre-established categories and a quality appraisal scoring table. RESULTS: Using a broad search strategy, 5,558 potentially relevant papers were identified. After removing duplicates and applying exclusion criteria, 35 articles remained that used 15 unique questionnaires. From the 15 questionnaires, only 5 were general enough to be used across studies. Usability attributes covered by the questionnaires were: learnability (15), efficiency (12), and satisfaction (11). Memorability (1) was the least covered attribute. Quality appraisal showed that face/content (14) and construct (7) validity were the most frequent types of validity assessed. All questionnaires reported reliability measurement. Some questionnaires scored low in the quality appraisal for the following reasons: limited validity testing (7), small sample size (3), no reporting of user centeredness (9) or feasibility estimates of time, effort, and expense (7). CONCLUSIONS: Existing questionnaires provide a foundation for research on e-health usability. However, future research is needed to broaden the coverage of the usability attributes and psychometric properties of the available questionnaires.
Authors: Kenneth A Kobak; Wendy L Stone; Elizabeth Wallace; Zachary Warren; Amy Swanson; Kraig Robson Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Karen Dunn Lopez; Claire Cravero; Archana Krishnan; Vanessa E Carvalho de Sousa Freire; Gabriel J Culbert Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2020-12-20 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Anabela G Silva; Patrícia Simões; Rita Santos; Alexandra Queirós; Nelson P Rocha; Mário Rodrigues Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Aniek A O M Claassen; Thea P M Vliet Vlieland; Vincent J J F Busch; Henk J Schers; Frank H J van den Hoogen; Cornelia H M van den Ende Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2019-11-28
Authors: Christian Gerdesköld; Eva Toth-Pal; Inger Wårdh; Gunnar H Nilsson; Anna Nager Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 2.796