Kei Long Cheung1, Mickaël Hiligsmann2, Maximilian Präger3, Teresa Jones4, Judit Józwiak-Hagymásy5, Celia Muñoz6, Adam Lester-George7, Subhash Pokhrel4, Ángel López-Nicolás8, Marta Trapero-Bertran6, Silvia M A A Evers9, Hein de Vries10. 1. Caphri School of Public Health and Primary Care,Health Services Research,Maastricht Universitykl.cheung@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. Caphri School of Public Health and Primary Care,Health Services Research,Maastricht University. 3. Helmholtz Zentrum München (GmbH);German Research Center for Environmental Health (Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management). 4. Health Economics Research Group,Brunel University London. 5. Syreon Research Institute. 6. Centre for Research in Economics and Health (CRES),University Pompeu Fabra. 7. LeLan Solutions. 8. Polytechnic University of Cartagena. 9. Caphri School of Public Health and Primary Care,Health Services Research,Maastricht University;Trimbos Institute,Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction. 10. Caphri School of Public Health and Primary Care,Health Promotion,Maastricht University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Economic decision-support tools can provide valuable information for tobacco control stakeholders, but their usability may impact the adoption of such tools. This study aims to illustrate a mixed-method usability evaluation of an economic decision-support tool for tobacco control, using the EQUIPT ROI tool prototype as a case study. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed methods design was used, including a heuristic evaluation, a thinking aloud approach, and a questionnaire testing and exploring the usability of the Return of Investment tool. RESULTS: A total of sixty-six users evaluated the tool (thinking aloud) and completed the questionnaire. For the heuristic evaluation, four experts evaluated the interface. In total twenty-one percent of the respondents perceived good usability. A total of 118 usability problems were identified, from which twenty-six problems were categorized as most severe, indicating high priority to fix them before implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Combining user-based and expert-based evaluation methods is recommended as these were shown to identify unique usability problems. The evaluation provides input to optimize usability of a decision-support tool, and may serve as a vantage point for other developers to conduct usability evaluations to refine similar tools before wide-scale implementation. Such studies could reduce implementation gaps by optimizing usability, enhancing in turn the research impact of such interventions.
OBJECTIVES: Economic decision-support tools can provide valuable information for tobacco control stakeholders, but their usability may impact the adoption of such tools. This study aims to illustrate a mixed-method usability evaluation of an economic decision-support tool for tobacco control, using the EQUIPT ROI tool prototype as a case study. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed methods design was used, including a heuristic evaluation, a thinking aloud approach, and a questionnaire testing and exploring the usability of the Return of Investment tool. RESULTS: A total of sixty-six users evaluated the tool (thinking aloud) and completed the questionnaire. For the heuristic evaluation, four experts evaluated the interface. In total twenty-one percent of the respondents perceived good usability. A total of 118 usability problems were identified, from which twenty-six problems were categorized as most severe, indicating high priority to fix them before implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Combining user-based and expert-based evaluation methods is recommended as these were shown to identify unique usability problems. The evaluation provides input to optimize usability of a decision-support tool, and may serve as a vantage point for other developers to conduct usability evaluations to refine similar tools before wide-scale implementation. Such studies could reduce implementation gaps by optimizing usability, enhancing in turn the research impact of such interventions.
Authors: Ritch Te Kampe; Annelies Boonen; Tim L Jansen; Jan Mathis Elling; Marcel Flendrie; Yvonne van Eijk-Hustings; Matthijs Janssen; Caroline van Durme; Hein de Vries Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Hanneke Kip; Julia Keizer; Marcia C da Silva; Nienke Beerlage-de Jong; Nadine Köhle; Saskia M Kelders Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 5.428