» Articles » PMID: 31160008

Assessing Usability of EHealth Technology: A Comparison of Usability Benchmarking Instruments

Overview
Date 2019 Jun 5
PMID 31160008
Citations 40
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: It is generally assumed that usability benchmarking instruments are technology agnostic. The same methods for usability evaluations are used for digital commercial, educational, governmental and healthcare systems. However, eHealth technologies have unique characteristics. They need to support patients' health, provide treatment or monitor progress. Little research is done on the effectiveness of different benchmarks (qualitative and quantitative) within the eHealth context.

Objectives: In this study, we compared three usability benchmarking instruments (logging task performance, think aloud and the SUS, the System Usability Scale) to assess which metric is most indicative of usability in an eHealth technology. Also, we analyzed how these outcome variables (task completion, system usability score, serious and critical usability issues) interacted with the acceptance factors Perceived benefits, Usefulness and Intention to use.

Methods: A usability evaluation protocol was set up that incorporated all three benchmarking methods. This protocol was deployed among 36 Dutch participants and across three different eHealth technologies: a gamified application for older adults (N = 19), an online tele-rehabilitation portal for healthcare professionals (N = 9), and a mobile health app for adolescents (N = 8).

Results: The main finding was that task completion, compared to the SUS, had stronger correlations with usability benchmarks. Also, serious and critical issues were stronger correlated to task metrics than the SUS. With regard to acceptance factors, there were no significant differences between the three usability benchmarking instruments.

Conclusions: With this study, we took a first step in examining how to improve usability evaluations for eHealth. The results show that listing usability issues from think aloud protocols remains one of the most effective tools to explain the usability for eHealth. Using the SUS as a stand-alone usability metric for eHealth is not recommended. Preferably, the SUS should be combined with task metrics, especially task completion. We recommend to develop a usability benchmarking instrument specifically for eHealth.

Citing Articles

Comparison of usability and user-friendliness of three FeNO analyzers in a general population cohort of the LEAD study.

Idzko M, Bal C, Schiffers C, Van Herck M, Zehetmayer S, Breyer M Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):8255.

PMID: 40064968 PMC: 11893765. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-92664-8.


Protocol for a usability and pilot implementation study of a digital medical device to assess pain in non-verbal people with dementia in Portuguese residential care facilities.

Pereira Guerreiro M, Felix I, Tome M, Hoti K, Ramos C, Dias B Digit Health. 2025; 11:20552076241311326.

PMID: 39949844 PMC: 11822828. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241311326.


Patients' Experienced Usability and Satisfaction With Digital Health Solutions in a Home Setting: Instrument Validation Study.

Oudbier S, Smets E, Nieuwkerk P, Neal D, Nurmohamed S, Meij H JMIR Med Inform. 2025; 13():e63703.

PMID: 39800853 PMC: 11734564. DOI: 10.2196/63703.


Assessing the interdependency among effectiveness, satisfaction and efficient use of the Lightwave Health Information Management System (LHIMS) by health professionals in Ghana.

Agyemang E, Adu-Gyamfi A, Achampong E, Esia-Donkoh K BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):1418.

PMID: 39550605 PMC: 11568627. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-11883-3.


A web-based resource for exercise training in children treated for brain tumours to improve cognitive sequelae: Development and usability.

Cox E, Kiwan M, de Medeiros C, Chen-Lai J, Cassiani C, Tseng J Digit Health. 2024; 10:20552076241272710.

PMID: 39262418 PMC: 11387797. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241272710.