Development and usability testing of a web-based cancer symptom and quality-of-life support intervention

Health Informatics Journal

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 10-23

  Wolpin, S E ^a   Halpenny, B ^b   Whitman, G ^a   McReynolds, J ^a   Stewart, M ^a   Lober, W B ^a   Berry, D L ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

consumer health information; decision support systems; ehealth; evidence based practice; IT design and development methodologies

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; EVALUATION STUDY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; METHODOLOGY; NEOPLASMS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT EDUCATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; UTILIZATION;

COMPUTERS; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; INTERNET; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84925012622     PISSN: 14604582     EISSN: 17412811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1460458213495744     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Wolpin S, Berry D, Austin-Seymour M, et al. Acceptability of an electronic self-report assessment program for patients with cancer. Comput Inform Nurs. 2008 ; 26 (6). 332-338
2. Berry D, Trigg L, Lober W, et al. Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part I: development and pilot testing. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2004 ; 31 (5). E75 - E83
3. Wolpin S, Stewart M. A deliberate and rigorous approach to development of patient-centered technologies. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2011 ; 27 (3). 183-191
4. Slack W, Hicks P, Reed C, et al. A computer-based medical history system. N Engl J Med. 1966 ; 274 (4). 194-198
5. Velikova G, Wright EP, Smith AB, et al. Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol. 1999 ; 17 (3). 998-1007
6. Wright EP, Selby PJ, Crawford M, et al. Feasibility and compliance of automated measurement of quality of life in oncology practice. J Clin Oncol. 2003 ; 21 (2). 374-382
7. Velikova G, Brown JM, Smith AB, et al. Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor-patient interactions in oncology. Br J Cancer. 2002 ; 86 (1). 51-59
8. Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB, et al. Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004 ; 22 (4). 714-724
9. Berry D. Quality of life assessment in persons with cancer. J Registry Manag. 1997 ; 24 (1). 8-11
10. Berry D. Computerized cancer symptom and quality of life assessment. Oncology nursing society PRISM workshop ; Newport Beach, CA ;..
11. Berry D, Galligan M, Monahan M, Karras B, Lober W, Martin S, Austin-Seymour M Advancing Nursing Practice Excellence: State of the Science. Tau ST, ed. Washington, DC: Sigma Theta Tau ; 2002 :
12. Mullen K, Berry D, Zierler B. Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part II: acceptability and usability. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2004 ; 31 (5). E84 - E89
13. Newell S, Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW, et al. Are touchscreen computer surveys acceptable to medical oncology patients?. J Psychosoc Oncol. 1997 ; 15 (2). 37-46
14. Carlson LE, Speca M, Hagen N, et al. Computerized quality-of-life screening in a cancer pain clinic. J Palliat Care. 2001 ; 17 (1). 46-52
15. Reichlin L, Mani N, McArthur K, et al. Assessing the acceptability and usability of an interactive serious game in aiding treatment decisions for patients with localized prostate cancer. J Med Internet Res. 2011 ; 13 (1). e4
16. Eghdam A, Forsman J, Falkenhav M, et al. Combining usability testing with eye-tracking technology: evaluation of a visualization support for antibiotic use in intensive care. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011 ; 169: 945-949
17. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - part 11 guidance on usability.. :
18. Karras BT, O'Carroll P, Oberle MW, et al. Development and evaluation of public health informatics at University of Washington. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2002 ; 8 (3). 37-43
19. Dockrey MR, Lober WB, Wolpin SE, et al. Distributed health assessment and intervention research software framework. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005 ; 2005: 940
20. Older adults and the World Wide Web: a guide for web site creators. Washington, DC: SPRY Foundation ; 1999 :
21. Nielsen J. Web usability for senior citizens: 46 design guidelines based on usability studies with people age 65 and older.. 2002 ;:
22. Berry DL, Blumenstein BA, Halpenny B, Wolpin S, Fann JR, Austin-Seymour M, Bush N, Karras BT, Lober WB, McCorkle R. Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 29 (8). 1029-35
23. Berry DL, Hong F, Halpenny B, et al. Electronic self-report assessment for cancer: results of a multisite randomized trial. American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting ; 2012 Chicago ; 2012..
24. Berry D, Halpenny B, Wolpin S. Enrollment rates with on-line versus in-person trial recruitment. 11th national conference on cancer nursing research ; Los Angeles, CA ;..
25. Wolpin S, Berry D, Whitman G, et al. Development of a user-centered web application for reporting cancer symptoms and quality of life information. American Medical Informatics Association 2009 spring congress ; Orlando, FL ;..
26. National Institute on Aging and National Library of Medicine. (2013). Making your web site seniorfriendly. http://www.nia.nih.gov/health/publication/making-your-website-senior-friendly (Retrieved 7/18/2013).
27. Kushniruk A. Evaluation in the design of health information systems: application of approaches emerging from usability engineering. Comput Biol Med. 2002 ; 32 (3). 141-149
28. Chiang MF, Cole RG, Gupta S, et al. Computer and World Wide Web accessibility by visually disabled patients: problems and solutions. Surv Ophthalmol. 2005 ; 50 (4). 394-405
29. Youngworth SJ Electronic Self Report Assessment-Cancer (ESRA-C): readability and usability in a sample with lower literacy. Seattle, WA: University of Washington School of Nursing ; 2005 :
30. Usability.gov. Your guide for developing usable & useful web sites, http://usability.gov/guidelines/index.html (2011, accessed 20 February 2011).
31. Virzi RA. Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough?. Hum Factors. 1992 ; 34 (4). 457-468
32. Tobii T60 & T120 Eye Tracker. http://www.tobii.com/en/eye-tracking-research/global/products/hardware/tobii-t60t120-eye-tracker/(2011, accessed 10 February 2011).
33. Krueger R Developing questions for focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE ; 1998 :
34. Garmer K, Ylven J, MariAnne Karlsson IC. User participation in requirements elicitation comparing focus group interviews and usability tests for eliciting usability requirements for medical equipment: a case study. Int J Ind Ergon. 2004 ; 33 (2). 85-98
35. Stoddard JL, Augustson EM, Mabry PL. The importance of usability testing in the development of an Internet-based smoking cessation treatment resource. Nicotine Tob Res. 2006 ; 8: S87 - S93
36. Kushniruk AW, Patel VL. Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems. J Biomed Inform. 2004 ; 37 (1). 56-76
37. CarmagnolaF.CenaF.CortassaO.GenaC.TorreI.Towards a Tag-Based User Model: How Can User Model Benefit from Tags?. User Modeling 2007, 445-449.
38. Kipp MEI, Campbell DG. Patterns and inconsistencies in collaborative tagging systems: an examination of tagging practices. P Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2006 ; 43 (1). 1-18
39. Nielson J Designing web usability: the practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing ; 2000 :
40. Nielsen J, Landauer TK. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. INTERCHI ; 1993 ; 1993. 206.
41. Faulkner L. Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behav Res Meth Ins C. 2003 ; 35 (3). 379-383
42. Gerjets P, Kammerer Y, Werner B. Measuring spontaneous and instructed evaluation processes during web search: integrating concurrent thinking-aloud protocols and eye-tracking data. Learn Instr. 2011 ; 21 (2). 220-231