Qualitative study measuring the usability of the International Cardiac Rehabilitation Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a comprehensive model of secondary preventive care. There is a wide variety in implementation characteristics globally, and hence quality control is paramount. Thus, the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation was urged to develop a CR registry. The purpose of this study was to test the perceived usability of the International Cardiac Rehabilitation Registry (ICRR) to optimise it. DESIGN: This was a qualitative study, comprising virtual usability tests using a think-aloud method to elicit feedback on the ICRR, while end-users were entering patient data, followed by semistructured interviews. SETTING: Ultimately, 12 tests were conducted with CR staff (67% female) in low-resource settings from a variety of disciplines in all regions of the world but Europe before saturation was achieved. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Participants completed the System Usability Scale. Interviews were transcribed verbatim except to preserve anonymity, and coded using NVIVO by two researchers independently. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 informed analysis. RESULTS: The ICRR was established as easy to use, relevant, efficient, with easy learnability, operability, perceived usefulness, positive perceptions of output quality and high end-user satisfaction. System usability was 83.75, or 'excellent' and rated 'A'. Four major themes were deduced from the interviews: (1) ease of approvals, adoption and implementation; (2) benefits for programmes, (3) variables and their definitions, as well as (4) patient report and follow-up assessment. Based on participant observation and utterances, suggestions for changes to the ICRR were implemented, including to the programme survey, on-boarding processes, navigational instructions, inclusion of programme logos, direction on handling unavailable data and optimising data completeness, as well as policies for authorship and programme certification. CONCLUSIONS: With usability of the ICRR optimised, pilot testing shall ensue.
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 | 0.022 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".