nach oben

Journal of Medical Systems

Erschienen in:

01.12.2023 | Original Paper

Usability Evaluation of Connected Health Devices in Home Monitoring: Toward Devices Adapted to the Characteristics of Informal Caregivers

verfasst von: Claire Cardon, Cécile I. Bernard, Noémie Chaniaud, Emilie Loup-Escande

Erschienen in: Journal of Medical Systems | Ausgabe 1/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

While an increasing number of Informal CareGivers (ICGs) are assisting their dependent loved ones with the daily living tasks and medical care, they are rarely considered in the medical devices design process. The objective of this study is to identify the characteristics of ICGs impacting the use of the iHealth® Sense BP7 medical device, namely a connected wrist blood pressure monitor. For this purpose, user tests were conducted with 29 potential or actual ICGs. First, the participants filled out a socio-demographic questionnaire and then handled the blood pressure monitor. Finally, they completed the System Usability Scale questionnaire. The results revealed an impact of technophilia and age on usability dimensions. To conclude, the consideration of the ICG population in the design process of connected medical devices is discussed, particularly the age and level of technophilia.

Effectiveness is defined by ISO 9241-11 as “accuracy and completeness with which users achieve specified goals” [14, p. 3].

Efficiency is defined by ISO 9241-11 as “resources used in relation to the results achieved” [14, p. 3].

Satisfaction is defined by ISO 9241-11 as “extent to which the user’s physical, cognitive and emotional responses that result from the use of a system, product or service meet the user’s needs and expectations” [14, p. 3].

Besbes M, Betti C, Caste F, Fidani G, Leduc C, Mezzasalma B et al. (2020) Tableaux de l’économie française. Insee, Paris

INPES (2010) Prospective santé 2030 - prévention 2010, rapport final.

Savignat P (2014) Les aidants: une catégorie incertaine entre domaine privé et espace public. Empan 96:151–157. https://doi.org/10.3917/empa.096.0151CrossRef

Saint-Charles D, Martin J-C (2001) De la perspective d’« aidant naturel » à celle de « proche-soignant » : un passage nécessaire. Santé Ment. Au Qué 26:227–244. https://doi.org/10.7202/014533arCrossRef

Lavoie J-P, Pepin J, Lauzon S, Tousignant P (1998) Les modèles de relation entre les services formels et les aidantes naturelles. Une analyse des politiques de soutien à domicile du Québec.

Gouvernement (2019) Stratégie de mobilisation et de soutien en faveur des aidants. https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/document/document/2019/10/dossier_de_presse_relatif_a_la_strategie_de_mobilisation_et_de_soutien_en_faveur_des_aidants_-_23.10.2019.pdf. Accessed 03 June 2022

Mitchell J (1999) From telehealth to e-health: the unstoppable rise of e-health. Canberra: Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.

Eysenbach G (2001) What is e-health?. J. Med. 3:1–2. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3.2.e20CrossRef

World Health Organization (2011) mHealth: new horizons for health through mobile technologies: second global survey on eHealth. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44607

10.

Ten Haken I, Ben Allouch S, Van Harten W.H (2018) The use of advanced medical technologies at home: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Public Health 18:1–33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5123-4CrossRef

11.

Simon P (2017) Bénéfices et risques des objets connectés en télémédecine et santé mobile. Eur. Res. Telemed 6 :47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurtel.2017.05.002CrossRef

12.

Safon M-0 (2019) La e-santé: télésanté, santé numérique ou santé connectée. IRDES

13.

Ehmen H, Haesner M, Steinke I, Dorn M, Gövercin M, Steinhagen-Thiessen E (2012) Comparison of four different mobile devices for measuring heart rate and ECG with respect to aspects of usability and acceptance by older people. Appl. Ergon. 43:582–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2011.09.003CrossRefPubMed

14.

ISO 9241-11 (2018) Ergonomie de l’interaction homme-système - Partie 11 : Utilisabilité - Définitions et concepts. https://viewerbdc.afnor.org/pdf/viewer/4BPcp2SEwjM1

15.

Trivedi M.C, Akheela Khanum M (2012) Role Of Context In Usability Evaluations: A review. Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.5121/acij.2012.3208CrossRef

16.

Pavard B, Karsenty L (1997) Différents niveaux d’analyse du contexte dans l’étude ergonomique du travail collectif. Réseaux 15:73–99. https://doi.org/10.3406/reso.1997.3136CrossRef

17.

Shackel B (2009) Usability – Context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. Interacting with Computers 21:339–346 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2009.04.007CrossRef

18.

ISO 20282-1 (2006) Facilité d’emploi des produits quotidiens - Partie 1: exigences de conception pour le contexte d’utilisation et pour les caractéristiques de l’utilisateur. https://viewerbdc.afnor.org/pdf/viewer/vJmahrHOX8k1. Accessed 27 October 2021

19.

Chaniaud N, Megalakaki O, Capo S, and Loup-Escande E (2021) Effects of User Characteristics on the Usability of a Home-Connected Medical Device (Smart Angel) for Ambulatory Monitoring: Usability Study. JMIR Hum. Factors 8:1–16 https://doi.org/10.2196/24846CrossRef

20.

Czaja S.J, Sharit J, Lee C.C, Nair S.N, Hernández MA, Arana N, Fu S.H (2013) Factors influencing use of an e-health website in a community sample of older adults. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc 20:277–284. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000876CrossRefPubMed

21.

Georgsson M, Staggers N (2016) Quantifying usability: an evaluation of a diabetes mHealth system on effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction metrics with associated user characteristics. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 23:5–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv099CrossRefPubMed

22.

Morris M.G, Venkatesh V (2000) Age Differences in Technology Adoption Decisions: Implications for a Changing Work Force. Pers. Psychol 53:375–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00206.xCrossRef

23.

Martins A.I, Silva A.G, Pais J, Cruz V.T, Rocha N.P (2022) The impact of users’ cognitive function on evaluator perceptions of usability. Sci. Rep 12:1–6 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17441-3CrossRef

24.

Wang S-W, Chiou, C-C, Su C-H, et al. (2022) Measuring Mobile Phone Application Usability for Anticoagulation from the Perspective of Patients, Caregivers, and Healthcare Professionals. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610136CrossRef

25.

Liang J, Xian D, Liu X, Fu J, Zhang X, et al. (2018) Usability Study of Mainstream Wearable Fitness Devices: Feature Analysis and System Usability Scale Evaluation. JMIR MHealth UHealth 6:1–14. https://doi.org/10.2196/11066CrossRef

26.

Jones J, Caird J-K (2017) The Usability of Blood Glucose Meters: Task Performance Differences Between Younger and Older Age Groups. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet 61:604–608 https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601636

27.

Van der Vaart R, Van Driel D, Pronk K, Paulussen S (2019) The Role of Age, Education, and Digital Health Literacy in the Usability of Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain: Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Form. Res. 3:1–11. https://doi.org/10.2196/12883CrossRef

28.

Harte R, Hall T, Glynn L, Rodríguez-Molinero A, et al. (1966) Enhancing Home Health Mobile Phone App Usability Through General Smartphone Training: Usability and Learnability Case Study. JMIR Hum. Factors 5:89–95. https://doi.org/10.2196/humanfactors.7718CrossRef

29.

Boutrouille M, Dordain F, Chaniaud N, Loup-Escande E (2022) Impact of technophilia and the guiding supports during use on the practical and social acceptability: example of a robotic programming software. Proceedings of RoCHI. https://doi.org/10.37789/rochi.2022.1.1.27

30.

Brooke J (1996) SUS: A “Quick and Dirty” Usability Scale. In: Jordan P-W, Thomas B, McClelland I-L, Weerdmeester B (eds) Usability Evaluation In Industry, CRC Press.

31.

Lewis J-R, Sauro J (2009) The Factor Structure of the System Usability Scale. In: Kurosu M (ed) Human Centered Design, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 94–103CrossRef

32.

Gronier G, Baudet A (2021) Psychometric Evaluation of the F-SUS: Creation and Validation of the French Version of the System Usability Scale. Int. J. Human–Computer Interact 37:1571–1582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1898828CrossRef

33.

Chaniaud N (2020) L’évaluation ergonomique de dispositifs connectés en santé pour le domicile patient dans le cadre de la chirurgie ambulatoire: Vers un modèle de l’utilisabilité adapté à la e-santé. Dissertation, University of Picardie Jules Verne

34.

Mykityshyn A.L, Fisk A.D, Rogers W.A (2002) Learning to Use a Home Medical Device: Mediating Age-Related Differences with Training. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 44:354–364 https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720024497727CrossRef

35.

Sonderegger A, Schmutz S, Sauer J (2016) The influence of age in usability testing. Appl. Ergon. 52:291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.06.012CrossRefPubMed

36.

Fleury S, Chaniaud N (2023) Multi-user centered design: acceptance, user experience, user research and user testing. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2023.2166623CrossRef

Titel: Usability Evaluation of Connected Health Devices in Home Monitoring: Toward Devices Adapted to the Characteristics of Informal Caregivers
verfasst von: Claire Cardon
Cécile I. Bernard
Noémie Chaniaud
Emilie Loup-Escande
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2023
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Medical Systems / Ausgabe 1/2023
Print ISSN: 0148-5598
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-689X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-023-01922-7

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

National Development and Implementation of a Democratized Disruptive Behavior Reporting System in Health Care

Patient Acceptance of Prescribed and Fully Reimbursed mHealth Apps in Germany: An UTAUT2-based Online Survey Study

Danish Prostate Registry (DanProst) – an Updated Version of the Danish Prostate Cancer Registry, Methodology, and Early Results

A Lightweight Deep Learning Framework for Automatic MRI Data Sorting and Artifacts Detection

Correction: Safety, Feasibility, and Acceptability of Telemedicine for Hypertension in Primary Care: A Proof-of-concept and Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (SATE-HT)

COVID-19 Close Contact Management: An Evolution of Operations Harnessing the Digital Edge