Background
The fastest-growing neurological disorder is Parkinson disease (PD), a progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects 10 million people worldwide. PD is typically treated with levodopa, an oral pill taken to increase dopamine levels, and other dopaminergic agonists. As the disease advances, the efficacy of the drug diminishes, necessitating adjustments in treatment dosage according to the patient’s symptoms and disease progression. Therefore, remote monitoring systems that can provide more detailed and accurate information on a patient’s condition regularly are a valuable tool for clinicians and patients to manage their medication. The Parkinson’s Remote Interactive Monitoring System (PRIMS), developed by PragmaClin Research Inc, was designed on the premise that it will be an easy-to-use digital system that can accurately capture motor and nonmotor symptoms of PD remotely.
Objective
We performed a usability evaluation in a simulated clinical environment to assess the ease of use of the PRIMS and determine whether the product offers suitable functionality for users in a clinical setting.
Methods
Participants were recruited from a user sign-up web-based database owned by PragmaClin Research Inc. A total of 11 participants were included in the study based on the following criteria: (1) being diagnosed with PD and (2) not being diagnosed with dementia or any other comorbidities that would make it difficult to complete the PRIMS assessment safely and independently. Patient users completed a questionnaire that is based on the Movement Disorder Society–sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. Interviews and field notes were analyzed for underlying themes and topics.
Results
In total, 11 people with PD participated in the study (female individuals: n=5, 45%; male individuals: n=6, 55%; age: mean 66.7, SD 7.77 years). Thematic analysis of the observer’s notes revealed 6 central usability issues associated with the PRIMS. These were the following: (1) the automated voice prompts are confusing, (2) the small camera is problematic, (3) the motor test exhibits excessive sensitivity to the participant’s orientation and position in relation to the cameras, (4) the system poses mobility challenges, (5) navigating the system is difficult, and (6) the motor test exhibits inconsistencies and technical issues. Thematic analysis of qualitative interview responses revealed four central themes associated with participants’ perspectives and opinions on the PRIMS, which were (1) admiration of purpose, (2) excessive system sensitivity, (3) video instructions preferred, and (4) written instructions disliked. The average system usability score was calculated to be 69.2 (SD 4.92), which failed to meet the acceptable system usability score of 70.
Conclusions
Although multiple areas of improvement were identified, most of the participants showed an affinity for the overarching objective of the PRIMS. This feedback is being used to upgrade the current PRIMS so that it aligns more with patients’ needs.
