The Solutions in Health Analytics for Rural Equity Across the Northwest (SHARE-NW) Dashboard for Health Equity in Rural Public Health: Usability Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the dearth of resources to support rural public health practice, the solutions in health analytics for rural equity across the northwest dashboard (SHAREdash) was created to support rural county public health departments in northwestern United States with accessible and relevant data to identify and address health disparities in their jurisdictions. To ensure the development of useful dashboards, assessment of usability should occur at multiple stages throughout the system development life cycle. SHAREdash was refined via user-centered design methods, and upon completion, it is critical to evaluate the usability of SHAREdash. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the usability of SHAREdash based on the system development lifecycle stage 3 evaluation goals of efficiency, satisfaction, and validity. METHODS: Public health professionals from rural health departments from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and Alaska were enrolled in the usability study from January to April 2022. The web-based evaluation consisted of 2 think-aloud tasks and a semistructured qualitative interview. Think-aloud tasks assessed efficiency and effectiveness, and the interview investigated satisfaction and overall usability. Verbatim transcripts from the tasks and interviews were analyzed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 9 participants, all were female and most worked at a local health department (7/9, 78%). A mean of 10.1 (SD 1.4) clicks for task 1 (could be completed in 7 clicks) and 11.4 (SD 2.0) clicks for task 2 (could be completed in 9 clicks) were recorded. For both tasks, most participants required no prompting-89% (n=8) participants for task 1 and 67% (n=6) participants for task 2, respectively. For effectiveness, all participants were able to complete each task accurately and comprehensively. Overall, the participants were highly satisfied with the dashboard with everyone remarking on the utility of using it to support their work, particularly to compare their jurisdiction to others. Finally, half of the participants stated that the ability to share the graphs from the dashboard would be "extremely useful" for their work. The only aspect of the dashboard cited as problematic is the amount of missing data that was present, which was a constraint of the data available about rural jurisdictions. CONCLUSIONS: Think-aloud tasks showed that the SHAREdash allows users to complete tasks efficiently. Overall, participants reported being very satisfied with the dashboard and provided multiple ways they planned to use it to support their work. The main usability issue identified was the lack of available data indicating the importance of addressing the ongoing issues of missing and fragmented public health data, particularly for rural communities.
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 | 0.029 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".