Testing an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Platform in the Context of Traumatic Brain Injury: PRiORiTy Usability Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant public health issue and a leading cause of death and disability globally. Advances in clinical care have improved survival rates, leading to a growing population living with long-term effects of TBI, which can impact physical, cognitive, and emotional health. These effects often require continuous management and individualized care. Traditional paper-based assessments can be cumbersome, potentially impeding regular monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Electronic PROs (ePROs) offer a promising alternative by enabling real-time symptom tracking, which can facilitate early identification of issues, support shared decision-making, and improve outcomes for patients with TBI. Objective: This study evaluates the usability of an ePRO platform-Atom5-for individuals with TBI. By analyzing how patients use the system to report their symptoms, the study aims to identify usability issues, assess user satisfaction, and determine the potential of Atom5 to support ongoing patient-centered care. Methods: Atom5 was customized to enable individuals with TBI to report their symptoms. Usability testing was conducted through one-on-one sessions with participants recruited from Headway UK-an organization supporting brain injury survivors. Each participant took part in cognitive interviews using with the "Think Aloud" method, encouraging them to verbalize their thoughts and experiences while using the platform. This approach provided qualitative insights into areas of difficulty, usability strengths, and accessibility barriers. User satisfaction was quantitatively assessed with a brief 4-item questionnaire based on the System Usability Scale. Usability outcomes were analyzed for critical and noncritical errors, focusing on user experience and overall satisfaction. Results: In total, 9 participants completed a single usability testing session using Atom5, including 4 men, 4 women, and 1 nonbinary individual; 4 participants were under 55 years old, and 6 had their TBI <10 years ago. Finally, 8 participants used an Android device. The platform included measures for anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 item), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2), posttraumatic stress disorder (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder checklist 2), and TBI-specific quality of life (Traumatic Brain Injury - Quality of Life Short form) and a total of 26 questions. Overall, all participants were satisfied with the system, noting that it was easy to navigate and accessible despite difficulties in understanding some questions. Further, 6 participants encountered no errors, while 1 participant reported one critical error and 2 others reported one noncritical error each. The participants rated their overall satisfaction with the platform at an average score of 3.9 (SD 0.49) out of 5. Conclusions: This usability study suggests that individuals living with TBI can effectively report symptoms using the Atom5 ePRO platform, with generally high satisfaction and few usability issues, thereby enabling continuous monitoring and proactive symptom management. Future ePRO development should focus on inclusivity and adaptability to address the diverse needs of patients with TBI, ensuring these tools can effectively support a wide range of users.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,046 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».