HCI-modelling for improving the clinical usability of digital health technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) have been shown to have variable usability as measured by efficiency, effectiveness and user satisfaction despite large-scale government projects to regulate and standardise user interface (UI) design. We hypothesised that Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) modelling could improve the methodology for DHT design and regulation, and support the creation of future evidence-based UI standards and guidelines for DHTs. METHODOLOGY: Using a Design Science Research (DSR) framework, we developed novel UI components that adhered to existing standards and guidelines (combining the NHS Common User Interface (CUI) standard and the NHS Design System). We firstly evaluated the Patient Banner UI component for compliance with the two guidelines and then used HCI-modelling to evaluate the "Add New Patient" workflow to measure time to task completion and cognitive load. RESULTS: Combining the two guidelines to produce new UI elements is technically feasible for the Patient Banner and the Patient Name Input components. There are some inconsistencies between the NHS Design System and the NHS CUI when implementing the Patient Banner. HCI-modelling successfully quantified challenges adhering to the NHS CUI and the NHS Design system for the "Add New Patient" workflow. DISCUSSION: We successfully developed new design artefacts combing two major design guidelines for DHTs. By quantifying usability issues using HCI-modelling, we have demonstrated the feasibility of a methodology that combines HCI-modelling into a human-centred design (HCD) process could enable the development of standardised UI elements for DHTs that is more scientifically robust than HCD alone. CONCLUSION: Combining HCI-modelling and Human-Centred Design could improve scientific progress towards developing safer and more user-friendly DHTs.
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 | 0.045 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".