4.5 Review

Key methodological considerations for usability testing of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems

Journal

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 325-333

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02329-z

Keywords

Usability testing; Electronic patient-reported outcomes; PROs; ePROs; ePRO systems; ePROM; Digital health; eHealth; Telehealth; Electronic systems

Funding

  1. Health Foundation's Improvement Science Programme [7452]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Recent advances in information technology and improved access to the internet have led to a rapid increase in the adoption and ownership of electronic devices such as touch screen smartphones and tablet computers. This has also led to a renewed interest in the field of digital health also referred to as telehealth or electronic health (eHealth). There is now a drive to collect these PROs electronically using ePRO systems. Method However, the user interfaces of ePRO systems need to be adequately assessed to ensure they are not only fit for purpose but also acceptable to patients who are the end users. Usability testing is a technique that involves the testing of systems, products or websites with participants drawn from the target population. Usability testing can assist ePRO developers in the evaluation of ePRO user interface. The complexity of ePRO systems; stage of development; metrics to measure; and the use of scenarios, moderators and appropriate sample sizes are key methodological issues to consider when planning usability tests. Conclusion The findings from usability testing may facilitate the improvement of ePRO systems making them more usable and acceptable to end users. This may in turn improve the adoption of ePRO systems post-implementation. This article highlights the key methodological issues to consider and address when planning usability testing of ePRO systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available