Usability, acceptability, and feasibility of the Implementation of Infant Pain Practice Change (ImPaC) Resource

Mariana Bueno, B. Stevens, Megha Rao, Shirin Riahi, Alexa Lanese, Shelly-Anne Li
{"title":"Usability, acceptability, and feasibility of the Implementation of Infant Pain Practice Change (ImPaC) Resource","authors":"Mariana Bueno, B. Stevens, Megha Rao, Shirin Riahi, Alexa Lanese, Shelly-Anne Li","doi":"10.1002/pne2.12027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Implementation of Infant Pain Practice (ImPaC) Resource is an eHealth tool designed to support infant pain practice change and ultimately enhance pain outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine users' perspectives on usability, acceptability, and feasibility of the ImPaC Resource. A descriptive prospective mixed‐methods quality improvement study was conducted at a pediatric hospital in Canada. Individual “think aloud” interviews were conducted in a nonclinical environment (Phase A); “near live” testing was conducted while users interacted with the Resource in clinical setting (Phase B); individual “think‐aloud” interviews were conducted in a nonclinical environment (Phase C). Outcomes included usability (System Usability Scale—SUS), acceptability (Acceptability E‐Scale—AES), and feasibility. Interview transcripts were coded per a priori themes using deductive content analysis to create a structured categorization matrix. In Phase A, 10 clinicians interacted with the Resource in individual sessions. Median SUS score was 73.75 (range 52.5‐92.5). In Phase B, four clinicians implemented the Resource in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) over 4 months. Median SUS score was 85 (82.5‐92.5), and median AES score was 24 (21‐24). In Phase C, an enhanced prototype was produced, and the same users from Phase B navigated the Resource in individual sessions. Median SUS score was 88.75 (85‐95), and median AES score was 27.5 (25‐29). Users considered the Resource as feasible for implementation, easy to navigate, engaging, intuitive, comprehensive, and evidence‐based. Users highlighted the potential transferability of the Resource to other contexts and settings. The enhanced version of the ImPaC Resource was usable, acceptable, feasible, and met users' expectations and requirements. Results lead the way for evaluation of the Resource in a nationwide cluster randomized trial including 18 NICUs. This knowledge‐rich platform is expected to enhance infant pain practices and outcomes in diverse clinical settings.","PeriodicalId":19634,"journal":{"name":"Paediatric & Neonatal Pain","volume":"4 1","pages":"82 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paediatric & Neonatal Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pne2.12027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

The Implementation of Infant Pain Practice (ImPaC) Resource is an eHealth tool designed to support infant pain practice change and ultimately enhance pain outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine users' perspectives on usability, acceptability, and feasibility of the ImPaC Resource. A descriptive prospective mixed‐methods quality improvement study was conducted at a pediatric hospital in Canada. Individual “think aloud” interviews were conducted in a nonclinical environment (Phase A); “near live” testing was conducted while users interacted with the Resource in clinical setting (Phase B); individual “think‐aloud” interviews were conducted in a nonclinical environment (Phase C). Outcomes included usability (System Usability Scale—SUS), acceptability (Acceptability E‐Scale—AES), and feasibility. Interview transcripts were coded per a priori themes using deductive content analysis to create a structured categorization matrix. In Phase A, 10 clinicians interacted with the Resource in individual sessions. Median SUS score was 73.75 (range 52.5‐92.5). In Phase B, four clinicians implemented the Resource in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) over 4 months. Median SUS score was 85 (82.5‐92.5), and median AES score was 24 (21‐24). In Phase C, an enhanced prototype was produced, and the same users from Phase B navigated the Resource in individual sessions. Median SUS score was 88.75 (85‐95), and median AES score was 27.5 (25‐29). Users considered the Resource as feasible for implementation, easy to navigate, engaging, intuitive, comprehensive, and evidence‐based. Users highlighted the potential transferability of the Resource to other contexts and settings. The enhanced version of the ImPaC Resource was usable, acceptable, feasible, and met users' expectations and requirements. Results lead the way for evaluation of the Resource in a nationwide cluster randomized trial including 18 NICUs. This knowledge‐rich platform is expected to enhance infant pain practices and outcomes in diverse clinical settings.
婴儿疼痛实践改变(ImPaC)资源实施的可用性、可接受性和可行性
婴儿疼痛实践的实施(ImPaC)资源是一个电子健康工具,旨在支持婴儿疼痛实践的改变,并最终提高疼痛结果。本研究的目的是确定用户对ImPaC资源的可用性、可接受性和可行性的看法。在加拿大的一家儿科医院进行了一项描述性前瞻性混合方法质量改进研究。个体“自言自语”访谈在非临床环境中进行(阶段a);当用户在临床环境中与资源进行交互时,进行了“近现场”测试(B期);在非临床环境中进行个人“自言自语”访谈(C期)。结果包括可用性(系统可用性量表- sus)、可接受性(可接受性E量表- aes)和可行性。访谈记录按先验主题编码,使用演绎内容分析来创建结构化分类矩阵。在A阶段,10名临床医生在个别会议中与资源进行互动。SUS评分中位数为73.75(范围52.5 - 92.5)。在B阶段,4名临床医生在新生儿重症监护病房(NICU)实施了超过4个月的资源。SUS评分中位数为85 (82.5 ~ 92.5),AES评分中位数为24(21 ~ 24)。在阶段C中,产生了一个增强的原型,来自阶段B的相同用户在单独的会话中导航资源。SUS评分中位数为88.75(85‐95),AES评分中位数为27.5(25‐29)。用户认为该资源可实施,易于导航,引人入胜,直观,全面,并以证据为基础。用户强调了资源可转移到其他环境和环境的可能性。ImPaC资源的增强版本是可用的、可接受的、可行的,并且满足了用户的期望和需求。结果在一项包括18个新生儿重症监护病房的全国性随机试验中对该资源进行了评估。这个知识丰富的平台有望在不同的临床环境中加强婴儿疼痛的实践和结果。
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