评估轻度至中度听力损失成人非处方医疗器械的安全性和可用性:形成性和总结性可用性测试

IF 2.6 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JMIR Human Factors Pub Date : 2025-01-20 DOI:10.2196/65142
Megan Elizabeth Salwei, Shilo Anders, Carrie Reale, Jason M Slagle, Todd Ricketts, Matthew B Weinger
{"title":"评估轻度至中度听力损失成人非处方医疗器械的安全性和可用性:形成性和总结性可用性测试","authors":"Megan Elizabeth Salwei, Shilo Anders, Carrie Reale, Jason M Slagle, Todd Ricketts, Matthew B Weinger","doi":"10.2196/65142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Only 15% of the nearly 30 million Americans with hearing loss use hearing aids, partly due to high cost, stigma, and limited access to professional hearing care. Hearing impairment in adults can lead to social isolation and depression and is associated with an increased risk of falls. Given the persistent barriers to hearing aid use, the Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule to allow over-the-counter hearing aids to be sold directly to adult consumers with perceived mild to moderate hearing loss at pharmacies, stores, and online retailers without seeing a physician or licensed hearing health care professional.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We evaluated the safety and usability of an over-the-counter hearing aid prior to Food and Drug Administration approval and market release.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We first conducted a formative usability test of the device and associated app with 5 intended users to identify outstanding safety and usability issues (testing round 1). Following design modifications, we performed a summative usability test with 15 intended users of the device (testing round 2). We concurrently conducted a test with 21 nonintended users (ie, users with contraindications to use) to ascertain if consumers could determine when they should not use the device, based on the packaging, instructions, and labeling (testing round 3). Participants were asked to complete 2-5 tasks, as if they were using the hearing aid in real life. After each task, participants rated the task difficulty. At the end of each session, participants completed a 10-question knowledge assessment and the System Usability Scale and then participated in debriefing interviews to gather qualitative feedback. All sessions were video recorded and analyzed to identify use errors and design improvement opportunities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Usability issues were identified in all 3 usability testing rounds. There were minimal safety-related issues with the device. Round 1 testing led to several design modifications which then increased task success in round 2 testing. Participants had the most difficulty with the task of pairing the hearing aids to the cell phone. Participants also had difficulty distinguishing the right and left earbuds. Nonintended users did not always understand device contraindications (eg, tinnitus and severe hearing loss). Overall, test findings informed 9 actionable design modifications (eg, clarifying pairing steps and increasing font size) that improved device usability and safety.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study evaluated the usability and safety of an over-the-counter hearing aid for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Human factors engineering methods identified opportunities to improve the safety and usability of this direct-to-consumer medical device for individuals with perceived mild-moderate hearing loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":36351,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Human Factors","volume":"12 ","pages":"e65142"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11769691/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Safety and Usability of an Over-the-Counter Medical Device for Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss: Formative and Summative Usability Testing.\",\"authors\":\"Megan Elizabeth Salwei, Shilo Anders, Carrie Reale, Jason M Slagle, Todd Ricketts, Matthew B Weinger\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/65142\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Only 15% of the nearly 30 million Americans with hearing loss use hearing aids, partly due to high cost, stigma, and limited access to professional hearing care. Hearing impairment in adults can lead to social isolation and depression and is associated with an increased risk of falls. Given the persistent barriers to hearing aid use, the Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule to allow over-the-counter hearing aids to be sold directly to adult consumers with perceived mild to moderate hearing loss at pharmacies, stores, and online retailers without seeing a physician or licensed hearing health care professional.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We evaluated the safety and usability of an over-the-counter hearing aid prior to Food and Drug Administration approval and market release.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We first conducted a formative usability test of the device and associated app with 5 intended users to identify outstanding safety and usability issues (testing round 1). Following design modifications, we performed a summative usability test with 15 intended users of the device (testing round 2). We concurrently conducted a test with 21 nonintended users (ie, users with contraindications to use) to ascertain if consumers could determine when they should not use the device, based on the packaging, instructions, and labeling (testing round 3). Participants were asked to complete 2-5 tasks, as if they were using the hearing aid in real life. After each task, participants rated the task difficulty. At the end of each session, participants completed a 10-question knowledge assessment and the System Usability Scale and then participated in debriefing interviews to gather qualitative feedback. All sessions were video recorded and analyzed to identify use errors and design improvement opportunities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Usability issues were identified in all 3 usability testing rounds. There were minimal safety-related issues with the device. Round 1 testing led to several design modifications which then increased task success in round 2 testing. Participants had the most difficulty with the task of pairing the hearing aids to the cell phone. Participants also had difficulty distinguishing the right and left earbuds. Nonintended users did not always understand device contraindications (eg, tinnitus and severe hearing loss). Overall, test findings informed 9 actionable design modifications (eg, clarifying pairing steps and increasing font size) that improved device usability and safety.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study evaluated the usability and safety of an over-the-counter hearing aid for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Human factors engineering methods identified opportunities to improve the safety and usability of this direct-to-consumer medical device for individuals with perceived mild-moderate hearing loss.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Human Factors\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"e65142\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11769691/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Human Factors\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/65142\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/65142","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: 0

摘要

背景:在近3000万听力损失的美国人中,只有15%的人使用助听器,部分原因是昂贵的费用、耻辱感和获得专业听力护理的机会有限。成年人的听力障碍可能导致社会孤立和抑郁,并与跌倒风险增加有关。鉴于助听器使用的持续障碍,美国食品和药物管理局发布了一项最终规定,允许在药店、商店和在线零售商直接向认为有轻度至中度听力损失的成年消费者出售非处方助听器,而无需去看医生或有执照的听力保健专业人员。目的:我们在食品和药物管理局批准和市场发布之前评估一种非处方助听器的安全性和可用性。方法:我们首先对5个目标用户进行了设备和相关应用程序的形成性可用性测试,以确定突出的安全性和可用性问题(测试第一轮)。在设计修改之后,我们对15个设备的目标用户进行了总结性可用性测试(测试第二轮)。我们同时对21个非目标用户(即有禁忌症的用户)进行了测试,以确定消费者是否能够确定何时不应该使用设备。根据包装、说明和标签(测试第3轮)。参与者被要求完成2-5个任务,就像在现实生活中使用助听器一样。每个任务完成后,参与者对任务难度进行评分。在每次会议结束时,参与者完成10个问题的知识评估和系统可用性量表,然后参加汇报访谈以收集定性反馈。所有的会议都有视频记录和分析,以确定使用错误和设计改进的机会。结果:可用性问题在所有3轮可用性测试中被确定。该设备几乎没有安全问题。第一轮测试导致了一些设计修改,然后在第二轮测试中增加了任务的成功。参与者在将助听器与手机配对的任务中遇到了最大的困难。参与者也难以区分左右耳塞。非预期使用者并不总是了解设备禁忌症(例如,耳鸣和严重听力损失)。总的来说,测试结果提示了9个可操作的设计修改(例如,澄清配对步骤和增加字体大小),从而提高了设备的可用性和安全性。结论:本研究评估了一种用于轻度至中度听力损失成人的非处方助听器的可用性和安全性。人为因素工程方法确定了提高这种直接面向消费者的医疗设备的安全性和可用性的机会,适用于被认为有轻度至中度听力损失的个人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the Safety and Usability of an Over-the-Counter Medical Device for Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss: Formative and Summative Usability Testing.

Background: Only 15% of the nearly 30 million Americans with hearing loss use hearing aids, partly due to high cost, stigma, and limited access to professional hearing care. Hearing impairment in adults can lead to social isolation and depression and is associated with an increased risk of falls. Given the persistent barriers to hearing aid use, the Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule to allow over-the-counter hearing aids to be sold directly to adult consumers with perceived mild to moderate hearing loss at pharmacies, stores, and online retailers without seeing a physician or licensed hearing health care professional.

Objective: We evaluated the safety and usability of an over-the-counter hearing aid prior to Food and Drug Administration approval and market release.

Methods: We first conducted a formative usability test of the device and associated app with 5 intended users to identify outstanding safety and usability issues (testing round 1). Following design modifications, we performed a summative usability test with 15 intended users of the device (testing round 2). We concurrently conducted a test with 21 nonintended users (ie, users with contraindications to use) to ascertain if consumers could determine when they should not use the device, based on the packaging, instructions, and labeling (testing round 3). Participants were asked to complete 2-5 tasks, as if they were using the hearing aid in real life. After each task, participants rated the task difficulty. At the end of each session, participants completed a 10-question knowledge assessment and the System Usability Scale and then participated in debriefing interviews to gather qualitative feedback. All sessions were video recorded and analyzed to identify use errors and design improvement opportunities.

Results: Usability issues were identified in all 3 usability testing rounds. There were minimal safety-related issues with the device. Round 1 testing led to several design modifications which then increased task success in round 2 testing. Participants had the most difficulty with the task of pairing the hearing aids to the cell phone. Participants also had difficulty distinguishing the right and left earbuds. Nonintended users did not always understand device contraindications (eg, tinnitus and severe hearing loss). Overall, test findings informed 9 actionable design modifications (eg, clarifying pairing steps and increasing font size) that improved device usability and safety.

Conclusions: This study evaluated the usability and safety of an over-the-counter hearing aid for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Human factors engineering methods identified opportunities to improve the safety and usability of this direct-to-consumer medical device for individuals with perceived mild-moderate hearing loss.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Human Factors
JMIR Human Factors Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
123
审稿时长
12 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