Evaluations of medical device usability during clinical investigations: a scoping review of clinical study protocols.

Expert review of medical devices Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-09 DOI:10.1080/17434440.2024.2378093
Laura Douze, Jessica Schiro, Louise Heyndels, Lionel Pazart, Sylvia Pelayo
{"title":"Evaluations of medical device usability during clinical investigations: a scoping review of clinical study protocols.","authors":"Laura Douze, Jessica Schiro, Louise Heyndels, Lionel Pazart, Sylvia Pelayo","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2024.2378093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Combining clinical investigations with usability studies provides valuable information for medical devices evaluation. But both types of study are very different in terms of objectives and methodologies. How are usability studies integrated into clinical investigations in practice?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the ClinicalTrials.gov database for clinical investigation protocols that included usability outcome(s) and analyzed them.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>77 study protocols were identified for the analysis, including 102 outcomes related to usability in total. The most frequently assessed outcomes were satisfaction (53/102) and ease of use (33/102). The questionnaire was the most frequently planned technique (85/102) followed by interviews (24/102). Other methods were used, such as observation (9/102), mostly when the end users was a healthcare professional, and diary (6/102), mostly with patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study results showed that the collection of usability data can be included in a clinical investigation, with various levels of investment. Resource-light, rapid integration via a questionnaire will enable the collection of subjective data on the users' perceptions. When more resources are available, observation in accessible environments can be set up (especially during use by healthcare professionals in hospital) or interviews and/or diaries for home-based environments (especially by patients).</p>","PeriodicalId":94006,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of medical devices","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of medical devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2024.2378093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Combining clinical investigations with usability studies provides valuable information for medical devices evaluation. But both types of study are very different in terms of objectives and methodologies. How are usability studies integrated into clinical investigations in practice?

Methods: We searched the ClinicalTrials.gov database for clinical investigation protocols that included usability outcome(s) and analyzed them.

Results: 77 study protocols were identified for the analysis, including 102 outcomes related to usability in total. The most frequently assessed outcomes were satisfaction (53/102) and ease of use (33/102). The questionnaire was the most frequently planned technique (85/102) followed by interviews (24/102). Other methods were used, such as observation (9/102), mostly when the end users was a healthcare professional, and diary (6/102), mostly with patients.

Conclusion: Our study results showed that the collection of usability data can be included in a clinical investigation, with various levels of investment. Resource-light, rapid integration via a questionnaire will enable the collection of subjective data on the users' perceptions. When more resources are available, observation in accessible environments can be set up (especially during use by healthcare professionals in hospital) or interviews and/or diaries for home-based environments (especially by patients).

临床研究期间的医疗设备可用性评估:临床研究协议的范围审查。
目的:将临床调查与可用性研究相结合,可为医疗设备评估提供有价值的信息。但这两种研究在目标和方法上有很大不同。在实践中,如何将可用性研究与临床研究相结合?我们在 ClinicalTrials.gov 数据库中搜索了包含可用性结果的临床研究方案,并对其进行了分析:结果:共确定了 77 项研究方案用于分析,其中包括 102 项与可用性相关的结果。最常评估的结果是满意度(53/102)和易用性(33/102)。问卷调查是最常用的方法(85/102),其次是访谈(24/102)。还使用了其他方法,如观察法(9/102),大多数情况下最终用户是医护人员;日记法(6/102),大多数情况下是患者:我们的研究结果表明,可用性数据的收集可以通过不同程度的投资纳入临床调查。通过问卷调查的方式,以较少的资源进行快速整合,就能收集到用户感知的主观数据。如果有更多的资源,可以在无障碍环境中进行观察(尤其是医护人员在医院使用时),或在家庭环境中进行访谈和/或写日记(尤其是病人)。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信