Development process and patient usability preferences for a touch screen tablet–based questionnaire
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to design a touch tablet asthma questionnaire while identifying patient preferences for usability features of such questionnaires. We created an evidence-based prototype and employed rapid-cycle design (semi-structured focus group testing, analysis, corresponding modifications, re-testing) with asthma patients aged ⩾16 years. We analyzed transcripts using deductive and inductive content analysis. Quantitative measures included Likert-type-scale responses, the System Usability Scale, and questionnaire completion times. There were 20 participants across five focus groups (15/20 female, age 49.1 ± 15.6 years). Usability-related themes included (1) "Touch Technology" (hygiene, touch technology familiarity, ease of use) and (2) "Questionnaire Design" (visual characteristics, navigation). Completion time was 11.7 ± 5.9 min. Summative Likert-type scale responses suggested high system usability, as did a System Usability Scale score of 84.2 ± 14.7. In summary, Attention to specific technology- and design-related preferences can result in a highly usable patient-facing touch tablet questionnaire. Our findings can inform touch questionnaire design across other diseases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it