Patients’ Experienced Usability and Satisfaction With Digital Health Solutions in a Home Setting: Instrument Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The field of digital health solutions (DHS) has grown tremendously over the past years. DHS include tools for self-management, which support individuals to take charge of their own health. The usability of DHS, as experienced by patients, is pivotal to adoption. However, well-known questionnaires that evaluate usability and satisfaction use complex terminology derived from human-computer interaction and are therefore not well suited to assess experienced usability of patients using DHS in a home setting. Objective: This study aimed to develop, validate, and assess an instrument that measures experienced usability and satisfaction of patients using DHS in a home setting. Methods: The development of the "Experienced Usability and Satisfaction with Self-monitoring in the Home Setting" (GEMS) questionnaire followed several steps. Step I consisted of assessing the content validity, by conducting a literature review on current usability and satisfaction questionnaires, collecting statements and discussing these in an expert meeting, and translating each statement and adjusting it to the language level of the general population. This phase resulted in a draft version of the GEMS. Step II comprised assessing its face validity by pilot testing with Amsterdam University Medical Center's patient panel. In step III, psychometric analysis was conducted and the GEMS was assessed for reliability. Results: A total of 14 items were included for psychometric analysis and resulted in 4 reliable scales: convenience of use, perceived value, efficiency of use, and satisfaction. Conclusions: Overall, the GEMS questionnaire demonstrated its reliability and validity in assessing experienced usability and satisfaction of DHS in a home setting. Further refinement of the instrument is necessary to confirm its applicability in other patient populations in order to promote the development of a steering mechanism that can be applied longitudinally throughout implementation, and can be used as a benchmarking instrument.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".