Usability, learnability and performance evaluation of Intelligent Research and Intervention Software: A delivery platform for eHealth interventions

Health Informatics Journal

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 730-743

  Wozney, Lori ^a   McGrath, Patrick J ^a,b   Newton, Amanda ^c   Huguet, Anna ^a,b   Franklin, Marcia ^a   Perri, Kaitlin ^a   Leuschen, K ^a   Toombs, Elaine ^a   Lingley Pottie, Patricia ^b  

^a IWK HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^b DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

eHealth; intervention studies; telehealth; usability; user experience

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERVENTION STUDY; MONITORING; PERCEPTION; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TELEHEALTH; COMPUTER INTERFACE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; EVALUATION STUDY; LEARNING; PROCEDURES; SELF CARE; SOFTWARE; STANDARDS; TELEMEDICINE;

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; HUMANS; LEARNING; SELF-MANAGEMENT; SOFTWARE; TELEMEDICINE; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84981352270     PISSN: 14604582     EISSN: 17412811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1460458215586803     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Glasgow RE, Phillips SM, Sanchez MA., Implementation science approaches for integrating eHealth research into practice and policy. Int J Med Inform. Epub ahead of print 30 July 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.07.002.
2. Van Velsen L, Wentzel J, Van Gemert-Pijnen JEWC,. Designing eHealth that matters via a multidisciplinary requirements development approach. JMIR Res Protoc 2013; 2 (1): e21.
3. Tate DF, Finkelstein EA, Khavjou O, et al. Cost effectiveness of Internet interventions: review and recommendations. Ann Behav Med 2009; 38 (1): 40-45.
4. Christensen H, Petrie K., State of the e-mental health field in Australia: where are we now? Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2013; 47 (2): 117-120.
5. Makai P, Melis RJ, Olde-Rikkert MG., Technical difficulties and evaluating e-health interventions. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174 (2): 304-305.
6. Williams S, Yardley L, Wills GB., A qualitative case study of LifeGuide: users' experiences of software for developing Internet-based behaviour change interventions. Health Informatics J. 2013; 19 (1): 61-75.
7. Thorndike FP, Ritterband LM, Gonder-Frederick LA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of an Internet intervention for adults with insomnia: effects on comorbid psychological and fatigue symptoms. J Clin Psychol 2013; 69 (10): 1078-1093.
8. Van Gemert-Pijnen JE, Nijland N, Van Limburg M, et al. A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies. J Med Internet Res 2011; 13 (4): e111.
9. Brewster L, Mountain G, Wessels B, et al. Factors affecting front line staff acceptance of telehealth technologies: a mixed-method systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2014; 70 (1): 21-33.
10. E-Mental Health in Canada: transforming the mental health system using technology. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2014, http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca
11. McGrath P, Sourander A, Lingley-Pottie P, et al. Remote population-based intervention for disruptive behavior at age four: study protocol for a randomized trial of Internet-assisted parent training (Strongest Families Finland-Canada). BMC Public Health 2013; 13: 985.
12. Kelders SM, Kok RN, Ossebaard HC, et al. Persuasive system design does matter: a systematic review of adherence to web-based interventions. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14 (6): e152.
13. Lehto T, Oinas-Kukkonen H., Persuasive features in web-based alcohol and smoking interventions: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res 2011; 13 (3): e46.
14. Fogg BJ., Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Boston, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2003.
15. Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M., Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 2009; 24 (1): 485-500.
16. Lustria MLA, Noar SM, Cortese J, et al. A meta-analysis of web-delivered tailored health behavior change interventions. J Health Commun 2013; 18 (9): 1039-1069.
17. Lustria MLA, Cortese J, Noar SM, et al. Computer-tailored health interventions delivered over the web: review and analysis of key components. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 74 (2): 156-173.
18. Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS., Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull 2007; 133 (4): 673-693.
19. Wozney L, Newton A, Perri K, et al. Intelligent Research and Intervention Software (IRIS): an eHealth platform for behavioral interventions. In: Proceedings of the 16th international symposium on health information management research: exploiting health informatics for connected, collaborative and customized patient care (ed Abidi SSR, Bath P,), Halifax, NS, Canada, 27-28 June 2013, pp. 159-160. Dalhousie University and University of Sheffield.
20. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009; 4 (1): 50.
21. Bordens KS, Abbott BB., Research design and methods: a process approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.
22. Walji MF, Kalenderian E, Piotrowski M, et al. Are three methods better than one? A comparative assessment of usability evaluation methods in an EHR. Int J Med Inform 2014; 83 (5): 361-367.
23. Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT., An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Int J Hum Comput Interact 2008; 24 (6): 574-594.
24. Lewis JR, Sauro J,. The factor structure of the system usability scale. In: Kurosu M, (ed.) Human centered design. Berlin: Springer, 2009, pp. 94-103.
25. Sauro J., Measuring usability: 10 things to know about the System Usability Scale (SUS), http://www.measuringusability.com/blog/10-things-SUS.php (18 2013,. accessed 12 October 2014).
26. Lewis JR, Sauro J,. The factor structure of the System Usability Scale. In: Proceedings of the human computer interaction international conference (HCII 2009), San Diego, CA, 19-24 July 2009.
27. Farnaz F, Izadyan K, Fricker SA,. Analytics for product planning: in-depth interview study with SaaS product managers. In: 2013 IEEE 6th international conference on cloud computing (CLOUD), Santa Clara, CA, 28 June-3 July 2013, pp. 871-879.
28. Yahoo Finance. New relic to bring SaaS-based app performance monitoring to windows Azure developer portal, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/relic-bring-saas-based-app-160000220.html (2012,. accessed 15 September 2014).
29. Chiou WC, Chin-Chao L, Chyuan P., A strategic framework for website evaluation based on a review of the literature from 1995-2006. Inform Manag 2010; 47 (5): 282-290.
30. Sevcik P., Defining the application performance index. Business Communications Review, http://apdex.org/docs/Defining-The-Application-Performance-Index.pdf (2005,. accessed 12 October 2014).
31. International Telecommunications Union. Definition of "Open Standards" http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/ipr/Pages/open.aspx (2005,. accessed October 12 2014).
32. Gunther NJ,. The Apdex Index revealed. CMG MeasureIT, 2009, http://www.cmg.org/publications/measureit/2009-2/mit56/measureit-issue-7-02-the-apdex-index-revealed/
33. Patton M., Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, 1990, pp. 169-186.
34. Dillman DA., Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: Wiley Interscience, 1978.
35. Haletky EA., Using application performance management for security. New Relic, https://try.newrelic.com/rs/newrelic/images/NewRelic-Using-APM-for-Security.pdf (2012,. accessed 12 October 2014).
36. Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J., Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud 2009; 4: 114-123.
37. McLellan S, Muddimer A, Peres CS., The effect of experience on System Usability Scale ratings. J Usability Stud 2012; 7 (2): 56-67.
38. Sauro J., A practical guide to the System Usability Scale: background, benchmarks, & best practices. Denver, CO: Measuring Usability LLC, 2011.
39. Schneider F, Van Osch L, De Vries H., Identifying factors for optimal development of health-related websites: a Delphi study among experts and potential future users. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14 (1): e18.
40. Moreno JM, del Castillo JMM, Porcel C, et al. A quality evaluation methodology for health-related websites based on a 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach. Soft Comput 2010; 14 (8): 887-897.
41. Sang-Myung L, Ungson GR, Russo MV., What determines an engaging website? An empirical study of website characteristics and operational performance. J High Tech Manag Res 2011; 22 (1): 67-79.
42. Wood TJ., Exploring the role of first impressions in rater-based assessments. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2014; 19: 409-427.
43. Sandeep D, Chhillar RS., Empirical study of root cause analysis of software failure. ACM SIGSOFT 2013; 38 (4): 1-7.