Usability Testing of an Online Self-Management Program for Adolescents with Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cancer is the most common potentially fatal disease of adolescence. Disease management is often complex, involving diverse therapies over long periods of time that require frequent monitoring. The Internet represents an ideal means to deliver education, self-monitoring capabilities, and social support to enhance disease self-management by adolescents with cancer. In response, the bilingual (English and French) Teens Taking Charge: Managing Cancer Online Internet-based self-management program for adolescents with cancer and their parents was developed following a needs assessment with adolescents, parents, and healthcare providers. Objective: The goal of this study was to utilize a user-centered design approach to refine the Internet-based cancer self-management program to ensure that is acceptable, understandable and easy to navigate for adolescents and their parents. Methods: Two iterative cycles of qualitative, audio-recorded usability testing involving user observation and followed by semi-structured interviews were used to refine the intervention. A purposive sample of English-speaking (Cycle 1: n=6, mean age=16.0 years, SD=2.0; Cycle 2: n=6, mean age: 14.0 years, SD=2.0) and French-speaking (Cycle 1: n=6, mean age=15.7, SD=1.0; Cycle 2: n=4; mean age=16.8, SD=1.5) adolescents with cancer and one of their parents were recruited from two large pediatric tertiary care centers. Sample size was set according to the number of adolescents needed to reach qualitative data saturation in each cycle of testing. Participants completed demographic questionnaires and reported their perceived comfort using the Internet. A brief demonstration of the intervention was provided and participants were asked to use the website while “thinking aloud” about specific issues encountered with the user interface and content areas. A trained observer recorded difficulties and navigation errors. Finally, participants were asked a series of open-ended questions addressing their experience with the website and recommendations for improvement. Audio-recorded data were transcribed verbatim. French interviews were transcribed into English by a bilingual transcriptionist. Qualitative content analysis of audio-recorded data and observer field-notes was used to capture emergent themes related to intervention usability. Results: All participants had access to a computer and Internet at home and reported being ‘comfortable’ or ‘very comfortable’ using the Internet. Testing with both adolescents and parents provided similar results on needed intervention changes. There were no major differences in the usability of the French and English versions. Overall, all participants liked the aesthetics of the website and its content. Both groups also reported finding the information presented on the website to be appropriate, credible, and relevant to their cancer treatment experiences. Usability issues were identified after Cycle 1 of English and French testing. Specifically, site (1) aesthetics (i.e., recommendation to eliminate ‘blank-spaces’ on pages), (2) navigation tools, and (3) the translation from English to French needed minor changes. Changes were made and no new issues were identified following the second phase of either French or English testing. Conclusions: The multifaceted usability approach utilized provided important insight into how Internet-based self-management programs can be made more amenable to adolescents with cancer (i.e., through altering aesthetics, navigation and language use). Next steps will include feasibility testing of the intervention before ultimately testing effectiveness in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. It is expected that an acceptable, trusted and cultural competent Internet self-management intervention will improve care delivery and health outcomes for adolescents with cancer. []
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".