Evaluation of Home Health Care Devices: Remote Usability Assessment

Kortum, Philip; Peres, S. Camille

doi:10.2196/humanfactors.4570

Cited by 36 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…had a negative inflection, so the ‘No’ response was used in the final usability index calculation. The final usability indices were presented as a percentage, from 0.0% (not usable) to 100.0% (very usable), with scores above 85% considered excellent [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Lay-User Assessment of Hepatitis C Virus Self-Testing Device Usability and Interpretation in Johannesburg, South Africa

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Only 20% of people with hepatitis C virus (HCV) know their status. In low-income countries diagnosis is under 10%. Self-testing for HCV antibodies (HCVST) could expand the coverage of HCV testing services. Currently, there are no stringent regulatory authority (SRA) approved HCVSTs, therefore lay-user usability of three prototype kits was assessed. This was a cross-sectional observational study conducted with 171 (CareStart n = 60, Bioline n = 52, First Response n = 59) participants. Participants were given one of the three HCVST kits with only instructions for use (IFU) and asked to perform the test in front of a professional trained in rapid diagnostic tests (RDT). Usability indices were calculated based on the correctness of performing each step of the product-specific process followed by contrived results interpretation and a post-test interview. The usability index was 93.9% for CareStart, 90.7% for Bioline and 94.9% for First Response. Most errors were on incorrect handwashing, sample collection and transfer to the test device. An average of 93.1% of contrived results were correctly interpreted, with most errors related to interpreting invalid results. Most participants (n = 167) stated they would visit a clinic after a positive result. With negative results, nearly half (28/60 (46.7%)) stated they should condomize, while just over two-thirds of participants that used Bioline (35/52 (67.3%)) and First Response (38/59 (64.4%)) said they should re-test. Most participants (n = 162) found the devices easy to use. Participants liked that self-testing was fast, private and convenient, however there were some confusion with IFU steps and pictures, finger-pricking with the lancet, collecting blood after the finger-prick, and transferring the sample/buffer. Prototype HCVST kits exhibit high usability and result interpretation by lay-users, and should be considered for SRA approval.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Lay-User Assessment of Hepatitis C Virus Self-Testing Device Usability and Interpretation in Johannesburg, South Africa

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because HUMDs sit on the boundary between medical products and consumer devices (Kortum & Peres, 2015), the market is highly competitive and characterized by an abundance of similar products that differentiate on the basis of functionality. Figure 1 shows photographs taken in two technology stores offering HUMDs on display in Turkey to emphasize how hard it might be for a lay user to make the buying decision for a product as simple as a blood pressure monitor (BPM).…”

Section: H Ome Health-care Technologies Arementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the level of competition in the HUMD market, the question to what extent HUMDs currently available address lay user diversity remains unanswered. One of the challenges faced in this study was to identify the applicable heuristics for the evaluation of HUMDs, given their unique characteristics: Although HUMDs are used by a diverse range of users, they are medical devices that are safety critical in nature (Kortum & Peres, 2015; Rajkomar et al, 2015). From a thorough literature review, I identified 42 heuristics identified from a combination of resources: Nielsen (1994), Shneiderman (1998), Gardner-Bonneau (2011), and the guidelines of the seven universal design principles (Center for Universal Design, 1997).…”

Section: Summary and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, Schaeffer et al (2015) identified several usability problems for lay users in their study with infusion pumps, and they recommended that human factors methods be implemented in the design process to optimize device usability before product commercialization. Other recent studies in the field of home health-care products used a diverse range of methodologies, such as questionnaires (Agnisarman et al, 2017), system usability scale (Kortum & Peres, 2015), and ethnographic observation and interviews in the framework of distributed cognition (Rajkomar, Mayer, & Blandford, 2015), all of which point to different usability problems for different types of HUMDs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Blood Pressure Monitor Usability Problems Detected Through Human Factors Evaluation

Cifter¹

2017

Ergonomics in Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blood pressure monitors are one of the most commonly used medical devices in the home environment. They are abundantly available and easily accessible in the consumer market at reasonable prices. However, it is not clear to what extent these devices comply with the needs and expectations of users with varying levels of capability. This article focuses on the usability aspect of blood pressure monitors from a universal design perspective. I present the results of a study in which three brands of blood pressure monitors were examined through a method that combines hierarchical task analysis and heuristic evaluation.

show abstract

“…Some of them can be very complex to use [ 5 ]. However, if HMDs are poorly designed, there could be user errors that could seriously affect patients’ safety [ 3 , 6 - 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Prior Health Knowledge on the Usability of Two Home Medical Devices: Usability Study

Chaniaud¹,

Métayer²,

Mégalakaki³

et al. 2020

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Studies on the usability of health care devices are becoming more common, although usability standards are not necessarily specified and followed. Yet, there is little knowledge about the impact of the context of use on the usability outcome. It is specified in the usability standard (ISO 9241-11, 2018) of a device that it may be affected by its context of use and especially by the characteristics of its users. Among these, prior health knowledge (ie, knowledge about human body functioning) is crucial. However, no study has shown that prior health knowledge influences the usability of medical devices. Objective Our study aimed to fill this gap by analyzing the relationship between the usability of two home medical devices (soon to be used in the context of ambulatory surgery) and prior health knowledge through an experimental approach. Methods For assessing the usability of two home medical devices (blood pressure monitor and pulse oximeter), user tests were conducted among 149 students. A mixed-methods approach (subjective vs objective) using a variety of standard instruments was adopted (direct observation, video analysis, and questionnaires). Participants completed a questionnaire to show the extent of their previous health knowledge and then operated both devices randomly. Efficiency (ie, handling time) and effectiveness (ie, number of handling errors) measures were collected by video analysis. Satisfaction measures were collected by a questionnaire (system usability scale [SUS]). The qualitative observational data were coded using inductive analysis by two independent researchers specialized in cognitive psychology and cognitive ergonomics. Correlational analyses and clusters were performed to test how usability relates to sociodemographic characteristics and prior health knowledge. Results The results indicated a lack of usability for both devices. Regarding the blood pressure monitor (137 participants), users made approximately 0.77 errors (SD 1.49), and the mean SUS score was 72.4 (SD 21.07), which is considered “satisfactory.” The pulse oximeter (147 participants) appeared easier to use, but participants made more errors (mean 0.99, SD 0.92), and the mean SUS score was 71.52 (SD 17.29), which is considered “satisfactory.” The results showed a low negative and significant correlation only between the effectiveness of the two devices and previous knowledge (blood pressure monitor: r=−0.191, P=.03; pulse oximeter: r=−0.263, P=.001). More subtly, we experimentally identified the existence of a threshold level (χ²2,146=10.9, P=.004) for health knowledge to correctly use the pulse oximeter, but this was missing for the blood pressure monitor. Conclusions This study has the following two contributions: (1) a theoretical interest highlighting the importance of user characteristics including prior health knowledge on usability outcomes and (2) an applied interest to provide recommendations to designers and medical staff.

show abstract

Evaluation of Home Health Care Devices: Remote Usability Assessment

Cited by 36 publications

References 13 publications

A Lay-User Assessment of Hepatitis C Virus Self-Testing Device Usability and Interpretation in Johannesburg, South Africa

A Lay-User Assessment of Hepatitis C Virus Self-Testing Device Usability and Interpretation in Johannesburg, South Africa

Blood Pressure Monitor Usability Problems Detected Through Human Factors Evaluation

Effect of Prior Health Knowledge on the Usability of Two Home Medical Devices: Usability Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About