We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparison of two heuristic evaluation methods for evaluating the usability of health information systems.
Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2018 April
OBJECTIVES: In addition to following the usual Heuristic Evaluation (HE) method, the usability of health information systems can also be evaluated using a checklist. The objective of this study is to compare the performance of these two methods in identifying usability problems of health information systems.
METHODS: Eight evaluators independently evaluated different parts of a Medical Records Information System using two methods of HE (usual and with a checklist). The two methods were compared in terms of the number of problems identified, problem type, and the severity of identified problems.
RESULTS: In all, 192 usability problems were identified by two methods in the Medical Records Information System. This was significantly higher than the number of usability problems identified by the checklist and usual method (148 and 92, respectively) (p < 0.0001). After removing the duplicates, the difference between the number of unique usability problems identified by the checklist method (n = 100) and usual method (n = 44) was significant (p < 0.0001). Differences between the mean severity of the real usability problems (1.83) and those identified by only one of the methods (usual = 2.05, checklist = 1.74) were significant (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed the potential of the two HE methods for identifying usability problems of health information systems. The results demonstrated that the checklist method had significantly better performance in terms of the number of identified usability problems; however, the performance of the usual method for identifying problems of higher severity was significantly better. Although the checklist method can be more efficient for less experienced evaluators, wherever usability is critical, the checklist should be used with caution in usability evaluations.
METHODS: Eight evaluators independently evaluated different parts of a Medical Records Information System using two methods of HE (usual and with a checklist). The two methods were compared in terms of the number of problems identified, problem type, and the severity of identified problems.
RESULTS: In all, 192 usability problems were identified by two methods in the Medical Records Information System. This was significantly higher than the number of usability problems identified by the checklist and usual method (148 and 92, respectively) (p < 0.0001). After removing the duplicates, the difference between the number of unique usability problems identified by the checklist method (n = 100) and usual method (n = 44) was significant (p < 0.0001). Differences between the mean severity of the real usability problems (1.83) and those identified by only one of the methods (usual = 2.05, checklist = 1.74) were significant (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed the potential of the two HE methods for identifying usability problems of health information systems. The results demonstrated that the checklist method had significantly better performance in terms of the number of identified usability problems; however, the performance of the usual method for identifying problems of higher severity was significantly better. Although the checklist method can be more efficient for less experienced evaluators, wherever usability is critical, the checklist should be used with caution in usability evaluations.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app