MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using Usability Evaluation to Inform Alberta's Personal Health Record Design

2015· article· en· W101379586 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPersona Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityeHealthPersonaWorld Wide WebComputer scienceWeb usabilitySoftwareHealth careHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alberta Health is deploying the Personal Health Portal (PHP) (MyHealth.Alberta.ca) to all people in the province of Alberta, Canada. The PHP will include several components such as a Personal Health Record (PHR) where users can enter and access their own health data. For the first PHR of its kind in Canada, Alberta Health asked the University of Victoria's eHealth Observatory to evaluate the PHP, including the PHR. The evaluation includes pre-design, design, and adoption evaluation. This paper focuses on early usability evaluations of the PHR software. Persona-based usability inspection was combined with usability testing sessions using think aloud. These evaluations found that while people were familiar with the web-based technology, several aspects of the PHR information architecture, content, and presentation could be improved to better support and provide value to the users. The findings could be helpful to others designing and implementing similar PHR software.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.329
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.124 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it