Evaluation of a Telerehabilitation System for Community-Based Rehabilitation

Schutte, Jamie; Gales, Sara; Filippone, Ashlee B.; Saptono, Andi; Parmanto, Bambang; McCue, Michael

doi:10.5195/ijt.2012.6092

Cited by 31 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The PSSUQ has been used in healthcare to evaluate clinical monitoring [46], anesthesia [47], as well as telerehabilitation systems [48]. PSSUQ scores range from 1 to 7, with lower scores representing better perceived system usability.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The usability of ventilators: a comparative evaluation of use safety and user experience

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe design complexity of critical care ventilators (CCVs) can lead to use errors and patient harm. In this study, we present the results of a comparison of four CCVs from market leaders, using a rigorous methodology for the evaluation of use safety and user experience of medical devices.MethodsWe carried out a comparative usability study of four CCVs: Hamilton G5, Puritan Bennett 980, Maquet SERVO-U, and Dräger Evita V500. Forty-eight critical care respiratory therapists participated in this fully counterbalanced, repeated measures study. Participants completed seven clinical scenarios composed of 16 tasks on each ventilator.Use safety was measured by percentage of tasks with use errors or close calls (UE/CCs). User experience was measured by system usability and workload metrics, using the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX).ResultsNine of 18 post hoc contrasts between pairs of ventilators were significant after Bonferroni correction, with effect sizes between 0.4 and 1.09 (Cohen’s d). There were significantly fewer UE/CCs with SERVO-U when compared to G5 (p = 0.044) and V500 (p = 0.020). Participants reported higher system usability for G5 when compared to PB980 (p = 0.035) and higher system usability for SERVO-U when compared to G5 (p < 0.001), PB980 (p < 0.001), and V500 (p < 0.001). Participants reported lower workload for G5 when compared to PB980 (p < 0.001) and lower workload for SERVO-U when compared to PB980 (p < 0.001) and V500 (p < 0.001). G5 scored better on two of nine possible comparisons; SERVO-U scored better on seven of nine possible comparisons. Aspects influencing participants’ performance and perception include the low sensitivity of G5’s touchscreen and the positive effect from the quality of SERVO-U’s user interface design.ConclusionsThis study provides empirical evidence of how four ventilators from market leaders compare and highlights the importance of medical technology design. Within the boundaries of this study, we can infer that SERVO-U demonstrated the highest levels of use safety and user experience, followed by G5. Based on qualitative data, differences in outcomes could be explained by interaction design, quality of hardware components used in manufacturing, and influence of consumer product technology on users’ expectations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1431-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The usability of ventilators: a comparative evaluation of use safety and user experience

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… Error rate: the number of errors/mistakes committed during all tasks.  Usability: participants were asked to complete a modified version of the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) [23,24]. The TUQ is a qualitative survey covering six factors -usefulness, ease of use and learnability, interface quality, interaction quality, reliability, satisfaction and future use [23,24].…”

Section: Usability Study Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An mHealth App for Users with Dexterity Impairments: Accessibility Study (Preprint)

Yu¹,

Parmanto²,

Dicianno³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A mobile health system called iMHere (interactive Mobile Health and Rehabilitation) was developed to support individuals with chronic conditions and disability in their self-management regimens. The initial design of iMHere, however, lacked sufficient accessibility for users with a myriad of dexterity impairments. The accessibility of self-management apps is essential in ensuring usability. Objective: This study aims to increase the usability of the iMHere system for users with dexterity impairments by increasing the app's accessibility. Methods: We targeted accessibility redesign by focusing on the physical presentation and the navigability of the iMHere apps. Six participants presenting with dexterity impairments were included in the usability study of the original and redesigned apps. Results: We report a trend toward a lower number of touches needed to complete tasks (p=0.088) and time to complete individual tasks (p=0.057) in the redesigned app compared to the original app. Significantly lower time for users to complete all tasks (p=0.006) and significantly lower error rate (p=0.013) was seen with use of the redesigned app compared to the original app. In fact, no errors occurred with use of the redesigned app. Participant-reported overall average usability of the redesigned app (p=0.007) and usability of individual modules (p<0.001) were significantly higher than that of the original app due mostly to better ease of use and learnability, interface quality, and reliability. Conclusion: Improved usability was achieved with the use of a redesigned app. This study offers insight regarding the importance of personalization in enhancing accessibility and also identifies strategies for improving usability in app development.

show abstract

“…In [64], a web-based portal supporting several clinical activities and the Versatile Integrated System for Tele-rehabilitation video-conferencing system called VISYTER were evaluated through the IBM After-Scenario Questionnaire (ASQ ) [65], the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ ) [66], the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ ) [47], and two demographic surveys. The use of all these instruments allowed capturing subjective and objective information, resulting in an effective method to evaluate the usability in tele-rehabilitation systems.…”

Section: Usability Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Usability and Accessibility in Tele-Rehabilitation Systems

Pérez-Medina¹,

Acosta-Vargas²,

Rybarczyk³

2019

Assistive and Rehabilitation Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The appropriate development of tele-rehabilitation platforms requires the involvement and iterative assessments of potential users and experts in usability. Usability consists of measuring the degree to which an interactive system can be used by specified final users to achieve quantified objectives with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a quantified context of use. Usability studies need to be complemented by an accessibility assessment. Accessibility indicates how easy it is for a person to access any content, regardless of their physical, educational, social, psychological, or cultural conditions. This chapter intends to conduct a systematic review of the literature on usability and accessibility in tele-rehabilitation platforms carried out through the PRISMA method. To do so, we searched in ACM, IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases for the most relevant papers of the last decade. The main result of the usability shows that the user experience predominates over the heuristic studies, and the usability questionnaire most used in user experience is the SUS. The main result of the accessibility reveals that the topic is only marginally studied. In addition, it is observed that Web applications do not apply the physical and cognitive accessibility standards defined by the WCAG 2.1.

show abstract

Evaluation of a Telerehabilitation System for Community-Based Rehabilitation

Cited by 31 publications

References 10 publications

The usability of ventilators: a comparative evaluation of use safety and user experience

The usability of ventilators: a comparative evaluation of use safety and user experience

An mHealth App for Users with Dexterity Impairments: Accessibility Study (Preprint)

A Systematic Review of Usability and Accessibility in Tele-Rehabilitation Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About