Usability Evaluation of an Offline Electronic Data Capture App in a Prospective Multicenter Dementia Registry (digiDEM Bayern): Mixed Method Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital registries have been shown to provide an efficient way of gaining a better understanding of the clinical complexity and long-term progression of diseases. The paperless method of electronic data capture (EDC) during a patient interview saves both time and resources. In the prospective multicenter project "Digital Dementia Registry Bavaria (digiDEM Bayern)," interviews are also performed on site in rural areas with unreliable internet connectivity. It must be ensured that EDC can still be performed in such a context and that there is no need to fall back on paper-based questionnaires. In addition to a web-based data collection solution, the EDC system REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) offers the option to collect data offline via an app and to synchronize it afterward. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the usability of the REDCap app as an offline EDC option for a lay user group and to examine the necessary technology acceptance of using mobile devices for data collection. The feasibility of the app-based offline data collection in the digiDEM Bayern dementia registry project was then evaluated before going live. METHODS: An exploratory mixed method design was employed in the form of an on-site usability test with the "Thinking Aloud" method combined with an online questionnaire including the System Usability Scale (SUS). The acceptance of mobile devices for data collection was surveyed based on five categories of the technology acceptance model. RESULTS: Using the "Thinking Aloud" method, usability issues were identified and solutions were accordingly derived. Evaluation of the REDCap app resulted in a SUS score of 74, which represents "good" usability. After evaluating the technology acceptance questionnaire, it can be concluded that the lay user group is open to mobile devices as interview tools. CONCLUSIONS: The usability evaluation results show that a lay user group generally agree that data collecting partners in the digiDEM project can handle the REDCap app well. The usability evaluation provided statements about positive aspects and could also identify usability issues relating to the REDCap app. In addition, the current technology acceptance in the sample showed that heterogeneous groups of different ages with diverse experiences in handling mobile devices are also ready for the use of app-based EDC systems. Based on these results, it can be assumed that the offline use of an app-based EDC system on mobile devices is a viable solution for collecting data in a decentralized registry-based research project.
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 | 0.039 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".