Bridging the Gap Between Academic Research and Pragmatic Needs in Usability: A Hybrid Approach to Usability Evaluation of Health Care Information Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technology is increasingly embedded into the full spectrum of health care. This movement has benefited from the application of software development practices such as usability testing and agile development processes. These practices are frequently applied in both commercial or operational and academic settings. However, the relative importance placed on rapid iteration, validity, reproducibility, generalizability, and efficiency differs between the 2 settings and the needs and objectives of academic versus pragmatic usability evaluations. OBJECTIVE: This paper explores how usability evaluation typically varies on key dimensions in pragmatic versus academic settings that impact the rapidity, validity, and reproducibility of findings and proposes a hybrid approach aimed at satisfying both pragmatic and academic objectives. METHODS: We outline the characteristics of pragmatic versus academically oriented usability testing in health care, describe the tensions and gaps resulting from differing contexts and goals, and present a model of this hybrid process along with 2 case studies of digital development projects in which we demonstrate this integrated approach to usability evaluation. RESULTS: The case studies presented illustrate design choices characteristic of our hybrid approach to usability evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Designed to leverage the strengths of both pragmatically and academically focused usability studies, a hybrid approach allows new development projects to efficiently iterate and optimize from usability data as well as preserves the ability of these projects to produce deeper insights via thorough qualitative analysis to inform further tool development and usability research by way of academically focused dissemination.
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 | 0.222 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".