2010
DOI: 10.1080/09602010903175034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating the usability of a single UK community acquired brain injury (ABI) rehabilitation service website: Implications for research methodology and website design

Abstract: Information provision is an important resource for those living with acquired brain injury (ABI) and their families. Web-based health information services are now common additions to health service provision. Ideally, they should be easy to use and provide useful, relevant and accurate information. ABI injuries do not affect individuals in the same way, and survivors can have a wide range of abilities and impairments. Therefore, any informational resource intended for this group should take account of their ne… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…One study developed a website evaluation questionnaire for nursing websites that was tested in both the USA and Taiwan [25], while Newby and Groom [27] evaluated the usability of a UK rehabilitative site and noted room for improvement, specifically in relation to legibility, layout, writing style, and the need for more information. Another study assessed the quality and readability of Internet information for adults with hearing impairment and their caregivers in five different countries and offered a number of suggestions for improvement based on the disparities they found [28].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One study developed a website evaluation questionnaire for nursing websites that was tested in both the USA and Taiwan [25], while Newby and Groom [27] evaluated the usability of a UK rehabilitative site and noted room for improvement, specifically in relation to legibility, layout, writing style, and the need for more information. Another study assessed the quality and readability of Internet information for adults with hearing impairment and their caregivers in five different countries and offered a number of suggestions for improvement based on the disparities they found [28].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Empirical studies analyzed in this revision show that the most common methodology is qualitative, based on previously described techniques such as questionnaires [14,15,16], observation or semistructured interview. It is also common to use a usability laboratory to develop the sessions with participants [17,18,19] although the experimental condition can be applied in the participant's natural environments -at home or work-using a portable laboratory [17,18].…”
Section: Review About Usability Assessment Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus effectiveness and efficiency measures are obtained. Similarly, a measure of the user satisfaction with the tool is also obtained when he/she provides feedback by means of a questionnaire or interview [14,15,16].…”
Section: Review About Usability Assessment Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8 Advise patients to search for websites that offer consumer health information without advertisements to alleviate some of the issues with website reliability. Reliable websites are best accessed via the nih.gov or cdc.gov search boxes rather than using large search engines.…”
Section: Savvy Searchingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lay users may be drawn to the visual aspect of a website rather than content; tell them to avoid sites with promotional tones and to obtain information only from sites that are clearly noncommercial and are likely to be nonbiased. 8 Searchers must be savvy concerning a website' s currency and look for a last modifi ed date; although there' s no established standard of time for updating, if changes are needed they're usually made every 2 to 3 months. 9 Questionnaires are available to guide users to reliable health information on the Internet, but no criteria have been established for evaluating the quality of a website based on scores achieved on the questionnaires.…”
Section: Savvy Searchingmentioning
confidence: 99%