A Digital Health Intervention Platform (Active and Independent Management System) to Enhance the Rehabilitation Experience for Orthopedic Joint Replacement Patients: Usability Evaluation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Optimal rehabilitation programs for orthopedic joint replacement patients ensure faster return to function, earlier discharge from hospital, and improved patient satisfaction. Digital health interventions show promise as a supporting tool for re-enablement. OBJECTIVE: The main goal of this mixed methods study was to examine the usability of the AIMS platform from the perspectives of both patients and clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate a re-enablement platform that we have developed that uses a holistic systems approach to address the de-enablement that occurs in hospitalized inpatients, with the older adult population most at risk. The Active and Independent Management System (AIMS) platform is anticipated to deliver improved patient participation in recovery and self-management through education and the ability to track rehabilitation progression in hospital and after patient discharge. METHODS: Two well-known instruments were used to measure usability: the System Usability Scale (SUS) with 10 items and, for finer granularity, the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) with 26 items. In all, 26 physiotherapists and health care professionals evaluated the AIMS clinical portal; and 44 patients in hospital for total knee replacement, total hip replacement, or dynamic hip screw implant evaluated the AIMS app. RESULTS: For the AIMS clinical portal, the mean SUS score obtained was 82.88 (SD 13.07, median 86.25), which would be considered good/excellent according to a validated adjective rating scale. For the UEQ, the means of the normalized scores (range -3 to +3) were as follows: attractiveness=2.683 (SD 0.100), perspicuity=2.775 (SD 0.150), efficiency=2.775 (SD 0.130), dependability=2.300 (SD 0.080), stimulation=1.950 (SD 0.120), and novelty=1.625 (SD 0.090). All dimensions were thus classed as excellent against the benchmarks, confirming the results from the SUS questionnaire. For the AIMS app, the mean SUS score obtained was 74.41 (SD 10.26), with a median of 77.50, which would be considered good according to the aforementioned adjective rating scale. For the UEQ, the means of the normalized scores were as follows: attractiveness=2.733 (SD 0.070), perspicuity=2.900 (SD 0.060), efficiency=2.800 (SD 0.090), dependability=2.425 (SD 0.060), stimulation=2.200 (SD 0.010), and novelty=1.450 (0.260). All dimensions were thus classed as excellent against the benchmarks (with the exception of novelty, which was classed as good), providing slightly better results than the SUS questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The study has shown that both the AIMS clinical portal and the AIMS app have good to excellent usability scores, and the platform provides a solid foundation for the next phase of research, which will involve evaluating the effectiveness of the platform in improving patient outcomes after total knee replacement, total hip replacement, or dynamic hip screw.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».