Usability Testing of a Digital Assessment Routing Tool: Protocol for an Iterative Convergent Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal conditions account for 16% of global disability, resulting in a negative effect on millions of patients and an increasing burden on health care utilization. Digital technologies that improve health care outcomes and efficiency are considered a priority; however, innovations are often inadequately developed and poorly adopted. Further, they are rarely tested with sufficient rigor in clinical trials-the gold standard for clinical proof of efficacy. We have developed a new musculoskeletal Digital Assessment Routing Tool (DART) that allows users to self-assess and be directed to the right care. DART requires usability testing in preparation for clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: This study will use the iterative convergent mixed methods design to assess and mitigate all serious usability issues to optimize user experience and adoption. Using this methodology, we will provide justifiable confidence to progress to full-scale randomized controlled trials when DART is integrated into clinical management pathways. This study protocol will provide a blueprint for future usability studies of mobile health solutions. METHODS: We will collect qualitative and quantitative data from 20-30 participants aged 18 years and older for 4 months. The exact number of participants recruited will be dependent on the number of iterative cycles required to reach the study end points. Building on previous internal testing and stakeholder involvement, quantitative data collection is defined by the constructs within the ISO 9241-210-2019 standard and the system usability scale, providing a usability score for DART. Guided by the participant responses to quantitative questioning, the researcher will focus the qualitative data collection on specific usability problems. These will then be graded to provide the rationale for further DART system improvements throughout the iterative cycles. RESULTS: This study received approval from the Queen Mary University of London Ethics of Research Committee (QMREC2018/48/048) on June 4, 2020. At manuscript submission, study recruitment was on-going, with data collection to be completed and results published in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide evidence concerning mobile health DART system usability and acceptance determining system improvements required to support user adoption and minimize suboptimal system usability as a potential confounder within subsequent noninferiority clinical trials. Success should produce a safe effective system with excellent usability, facilitating quicker and easier patient access to appropriate care while reducing the burden on primary and secondary care musculoskeletal services. This deliberately rigorous approach to mobile health innovation could be used as a guide for other developers of similar apps. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/27205.
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 | 0.160 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.017 |
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".