Usability of clinical decision support system as a facilitator for learning the assistive technology adaptation process

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the usability of Ontology Supported Computerized Assistive Technology Recommender (OSCAR), a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) for the assistive technology adaptation process, its impact on learning the matching process, and to determine the relationship between its usability and learnability. Two groups of expert and novice clinicians (total, n = 26) took part in this study. Each group filled out system usability scale (SUS) to evaluate OSCAR's usability. The novice group completed a learning questionnaire to assess OSCAR's effect on their ability to learn the matching process. Both groups rated OSCAR's usability as "very good", (M [SUS] = 80.7, SD = 11.6, median = 83.7) by the novices, and (M [SUS] = 81.2, SD = 6.8, median = 81.2) by the experts. The Mann-Whitney results indicated that no significant differences were found between the expert and novice groups in terms of OSCAR's usability. A significant positive correlation existed between the usability of OSCAR and the ability to learn the adaptation process (rs = 0.46, p = 0.04). Usability is an important factor in the acceptance of a system. The successful application of user-centered design principles during the development of OSCAR may serve as a case study that models the significant elements to be considered, theoretically and practically in developing other systems. Implications for Rehabilitation Creating a CDSS with a focus on its usability is an important factor for its acceptance by its users. Successful usability outcomes can impact the learning process of the subject matter in general, and the AT prescription process in particular. The successful application of User-Centered Design principles during the development of OSCAR may serve as a case study that models the significant elements to be considered, theoretically and practically. The study emphasizes the importance of close collaboration between the developers and the end users.

Testing an individualized digital decision assist system for the diagnosis and management of mental and behavior disorders in children and adolescents

“…The three secondary outcome measures are perceived clinical usability, perceived clinical relevance and validity, as well as perceived appropriateness of the IDDEAS CDSS. The perceived clinical usability of the CDSS will be measured using the system usability scale (SUS) [33,39,40]. The perceived appropriateness of the CDSS will be measured using the userengagement scale (UES) [41][42][43].…”

A roadmap for the development and evaluation of the eHealthResp online course

“…To ensure the adequacy of the scale, internal reliability statistical tests were performed through the calculation of Cronbach's alpha. 24 , 29 – 31 As the variables did not follow a normal distribution, non-parametric tests were conducted. Hence, the differences between physicians and pharmacists were evaluated using the Mann–Whitney U test The outcomes were established as statistically significant at p < 0.05.…”

“…The System Usability Scale (SUS) consists of a group of ten questions, in which participants should provide an answer based on a 5-point Likert scale numbered from 1 ("Strongly disagree") to 5 ("Strongly agree"). 24,[29][30][31] To calculate the usability score for each participant, odd-numbered questions (SOQ) scores and evennumbered questions (SEQ) scores were combined to obtain a 100-point scale. 23,32 Questionnaire's results analysis.…”

Methodologies for Evaluating the Usability of Rehabilitation Technologies Aimed at Supporting Shared Decision-Making: Scoping Review

“…Usability is defined by the ISO e 9241 as the "extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve Danial-Saad et al [43], 2016…”

“…We found that the methods used to evaluate different parameters of usability varied according to the a priori framing of usability, demonstrated by the variations in the definitions of usability described by the authors (Table 1). There was an evolution in the definition of usability across the included studies, with more recent studies (published since 2016) using the unified definition proposed by the ISO [43,46,48,57,61,64,65,67]. The usability parameters of the definitions were categorized based on the proposed comprehensive hierarchal model by Gupta et al [23] Although the ISO standards [21] and the usability model by Gupta et al [23] provide dimensions that could be considered as primary usability parameters, there remain challenges with measuring usability that emerged in this review.…”