Usability Assessment of the Missouri Cancer Registry's Published Interactive Mapping Reports: Round One.

BACKGROUND:  Many users of spatial data have difficulty interpreting information in health-related spatial reports. The Missouri Cancer Registry and Research Center (MCR-ARC) has produced interactive reports for several years. These reports have never been tested for usability.

OBJECTIVE:  The aims of this study were to: (1) conduct a multi-approach usability testing study to understand ease of use (user friendliness) and user satisfaction; and (2) evaluate the usability of MCR-ARC's published InstantAtlas reports.

METHODS:   An institutional review board (IRB) approved mixed methodology usability testing study using a convenience sample of health professionals. A recruiting email was sent to faculty in the Master of Public Health program and to faculty and staff in the Department of Health Management and Informatics at the University of Missouri-Columbia. The study included 7 participants. The test included a pretest questionnaire, a multi-task usability test, and the System Usability Scale (SUS). Also, the researchers collected participants' comments about the tested maps immediately after every trial. Software was used to record the computer screen during the trial and the participants' spoken comments. Several performance and usability metrics were measured to evaluate the usability of MCR-ARC's published mapping reports.

RESULTS: Of the 10 assigned tasks, 6 reached a 100% completion success rate, and this outcome was relative to the complexity of the tasks. The simple tasks were handled more efficiently than the complicated tasks. The SUS score ranged between 20-100 points, with an average of 62.7 points and a median of 50.5 points. The tested maps' effectiveness outcomes were better than the efficiency and satisfaction outcomes. There was a statistically significant relationship between the subjects' performance on the study test and the users' previous experience with geographic information system (GIS) tools (P=.03). There were no statistically significant relationships between users' performance and satisfaction and their education level, work type, or previous experience in health care (P>.05). There were strong positive correlations between the three measured usability elements.

CONCLUSIONS: The tested maps should undergo an extensive refining and updating to overcome all the discovered usability issues and meet the perspectives and needs of the tested maps' potential users. The study results might convey the perspectives of academic health professionals toward GIS health data. We need to conduct a second-round usability study with public health practitioners and cancer professionals who use GIS tools on a routine basis. Usability testing should be conducted before and after releasing MCR-ARC's maps in the future.