Empowering patients to address diabetes care gaps: formative usability testing of a novel patient portal intervention.

IF 2.5 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lyndsay A Nelson, Carrie Reale, Shilo Anders, Russ Beebe, S Trent Rosenbloom, Amber Hackstadt, Kryseana J Harper, Lindsay S Mayberry, Jared G Cobb, Neeraja Peterson, Tom Elasy, Zhihong Yu, William Martinez
{"title":"Empowering patients to address diabetes care gaps: formative usability testing of a novel patient portal intervention.","authors":"Lyndsay A Nelson,&nbsp;Carrie Reale,&nbsp;Shilo Anders,&nbsp;Russ Beebe,&nbsp;S Trent Rosenbloom,&nbsp;Amber Hackstadt,&nbsp;Kryseana J Harper,&nbsp;Lindsay S Mayberry,&nbsp;Jared G Cobb,&nbsp;Neeraja Peterson,&nbsp;Tom Elasy,&nbsp;Zhihong Yu,&nbsp;William Martinez","doi":"10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to design and assess the formative usability of a novel patient portal intervention designed to empower patients with diabetes to initiate orders for diabetes-related monitoring and preventive services.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We used a user-centered Design Sprint methodology to create our intervention prototype and assess its usability with 3 rounds of iterative testing. Participants (5/round) were presented with the prototype and asked to perform common, standardized tasks using think-aloud procedures. A facilitator rated task performance using a scale: (1) completed with ease, (2) completed with difficulty, and (3) failed. Participants completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) scored 0-worst to 100-best. All testing occurred remotely via Zoom.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 3 main categories of usability issues: distrust about the automated system, content concerns, and layout difficulties. Changes included improving clarity about the ordering process and simplifying language; however, design constraints inherent to the electronic health record system limited our ability to respond to all usability issues (eg, could not modify fixed elements in layout). Percent of tasks completed with ease across each round were 67%, 60%, and 80%, respectively. Average SUS scores were 87, 74, and 93, respectively. Across rounds, participants found the intervention valuable and appreciated the concept of patient-initiated ordering.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Through iterative user-centered design and testing, we improved the usability of the patient portal intervention. A tool that empowers patients to initiate orders for disease-specific services as part of their existing patient portal account has potential to enhance the completion of recommended health services and improve clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":36278,"journal":{"name":"JAMIA Open","volume":"6 2","pages":"ooad030"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/37/a6/ooad030.PMC10139764.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMIA Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to design and assess the formative usability of a novel patient portal intervention designed to empower patients with diabetes to initiate orders for diabetes-related monitoring and preventive services.

Materials and methods: We used a user-centered Design Sprint methodology to create our intervention prototype and assess its usability with 3 rounds of iterative testing. Participants (5/round) were presented with the prototype and asked to perform common, standardized tasks using think-aloud procedures. A facilitator rated task performance using a scale: (1) completed with ease, (2) completed with difficulty, and (3) failed. Participants completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) scored 0-worst to 100-best. All testing occurred remotely via Zoom.

Results: We identified 3 main categories of usability issues: distrust about the automated system, content concerns, and layout difficulties. Changes included improving clarity about the ordering process and simplifying language; however, design constraints inherent to the electronic health record system limited our ability to respond to all usability issues (eg, could not modify fixed elements in layout). Percent of tasks completed with ease across each round were 67%, 60%, and 80%, respectively. Average SUS scores were 87, 74, and 93, respectively. Across rounds, participants found the intervention valuable and appreciated the concept of patient-initiated ordering.

Conclusions: Through iterative user-centered design and testing, we improved the usability of the patient portal intervention. A tool that empowers patients to initiate orders for disease-specific services as part of their existing patient portal account has potential to enhance the completion of recommended health services and improve clinical outcomes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

授权患者解决糖尿病护理差距:一种新型患者门户干预的形成性可用性测试。
目的:本研究的目的是设计和评估一种新型患者门户干预的形成性可用性,该干预旨在使糖尿病患者能够主动订购与糖尿病相关的监测和预防服务。材料和方法:我们使用以用户为中心的设计冲刺方法来创建我们的干预原型,并通过3轮迭代测试来评估其可用性。参与者(每轮5人)被展示了原型,并被要求使用有声思考程序执行常见的标准化任务。引导者使用以下量表对任务绩效进行评分:(1)轻松完成,(2)困难完成,(3)失败。参与者完成了系统可用性量表(SUS),得分从最差的0到最好的100。所有测试都是通过Zoom远程进行的。结果:我们确定了可用性问题的3个主要类别:对自动化系统的不信任、内容关注和布局困难。变化包括提高订购流程的清晰度和简化语言;然而,电子健康记录系统固有的设计约束限制了我们对所有可用性问题的响应能力(例如,不能修改布局中的固定元素)。每轮轻松完成任务的比例分别为67%、60%和80%。平均SUS评分分别为87、74和93。在整个轮次中,参与者发现干预是有价值的,并欣赏患者主动排序的概念。结论:通过反复的以用户为中心的设计和测试,我们提高了患者门户干预的可用性。作为现有患者门户帐户的一部分,一种使患者能够发起针对特定疾病的服务订单的工具有可能促进推荐的卫生服务的完成并改善临床结果。
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
JAMIA Open
JAMIA Open Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
102
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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