Advertisement

Design, Understanding and Usability Evaluation of Connected Devices in the Field of Health: Contribution of Cognitive Psychology and Ergonomics

  • Noémie ChaniaudEmail author
  • Emilie Loup-Escande
  • Olga Megalakaki
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 818)

Abstract

EHealth appears to be both an economic solution and a way to overcome the increase in health needs due to the ageing of the population and the increase of diseases. The presented project is aimed at developing individualized monitoring of patients who have undergone surgery and have been supported by a medical information system and connected devices. These connected systems have many benefits for healthcare system, but they also have disadvantages, relating to the complexity of their use. Their evaluation must be done in real work situations with health professionals and patients with different profiles (age, needs, skills, literacy, pathology, and expert/novice in technologies …). The aim of this work is to propose an integrative theoretical and methodological framework for a standardized evaluation of usability (including efficiency, effectiveness, satisfaction and understanding) in e-health in a user-centered design context. To do this, below is presented a state-of-the-art on usability evaluation. Finally, this work presents insights on how ergonomics and cognitive psychology approaches can contribute to greater understanding and the use of these devices in healthcare (patients, caregivers, family careers).

Keywords

EHealth Usability Understanding 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project is financially supported by FEDER, EVOUCARE and by the Programme d’Investissements d’Avenir (PIA) under the programme of «Projets de Recherche et Développement Structurants pour la Compétitivité» PSPC 5.

References

  1. 1.
    Eysenbach G (2001) What is e-health? J Med Internet Res 3(20):1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sharry J, Davidson R, McLoughlin O, Doherty G (2013) A service-base evaluation of a therapist-supported on line cognitive behavioral therapy program for depression. J Med Internet Res 15(6).  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2248
  3. 3.
    Kjeldskov J, Graham C (2003) A review of mobile HCI research methods 9(8):317–335.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45233-1_23
  4. 4.
    Borycki E, Kushniruk A (2005) Identifying and preventing technology-induced error using simulations: application of usability engineering techniques. Healthc Q 8:99–105.  https://doi.org/10.12927/hcq.17673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO 9241-11:1998 (1998) Exigences ergonomiques pour travail de bureau avec terminaux à écrans de visualisation (TEV) – Partie 11: lignes directrices relatives à l’utilisabilitéGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frøkjær E, Hertzum M, Hornbæk K (2000) Measuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing sytems, CHI 2000, SIGCHI 2000, pp 345–352. The Netherlands, The Hague.  https://doi.org/10.1145/332040.332455
  7. 7.
    Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Academic Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jaspers M (2009) A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: methodological aspects and empirical evidence. Int J Med Inf 78(5):340–353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nishiuchi N, Takahasi Y (2015) Objective evaluation method of usability using parameters of user’s fingertip movement. In: Gavrilova M, Tan C, Saeed K, Chaki N, Shaikh S (eds) Transactions on computational science XXV. Lecture notes in computer science, LNCS, vol 9030, pp 77–89. Springer, Heidelberg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47074-9_5
  10. 10.
    Bernsen N, Dybkjaer L (2009) Multimodal usability. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bras Da Costa S, Beuscart-Zéphir M, Bastien J, Pelayo S Usability and safety of software medical devices: need for multidisciplinary expertise to apply the IEC 62355. Stud Health Technol Inf 216:353–357 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hartson R (2003) Cognitive, physical, sensory and functional affordances in interaction design. Beh Info Tech 22(5):315–338.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001592587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peute L, Driest K, Marcilly R, Bras Da Costa S, Beuscart-zephir M, Jaspers MA (2013) A Framework for reporting on human factor/usability studies of health information technologies. Stud Health Technol Inf 194:54–60.  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-293-6-54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peute L, Spithoven W, Bakker P, Jaspers M (2008) Usability studies on interactive health information systems; where do we stand? eHealth Beyond the Horizon 136:327–332.  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-864-9-327
  15. 15.
    Marcus A (2005) User interface design’s return on investment: examples and statistics. In: Bias R, Mayhew D (eds) Cost justifying usability: an update for the internet age, pp 17–39. Elsevier, Amsterdam.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012095811-5/50002-X
  16. 16.
    Klatzky RL, Kober N, Mavor A (1996) Safe, comfortable, attractive, and easy to use: improving the usability of home medical devices. National Academy, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/9058
  17. 17.
    Mykityshyn AL, Fisk AD, Roger WA (2002) Learning to use a home medical device: mediating age-related differences with training. Hum Factors 44(3):354–364.  https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720024497727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kortum PT, Peres C (2015) Evaluation of home health care devices: remote usability assessment. JMIR Hum Factors 2(1):1–9.  https://doi.org/10.2196/humanfactors.4570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fairbanks RJ, Caplan S (2004) Poor interface design and lack of usability testing facilitate medical error. Joint Comm J Qual Saf 30(10):579–584.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1549-3741(04)30068-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kortum PT, Bangor A (2013) Usability ratings for everyday products measured with the system usability scale. Int J Hum-Comput Inter 29(2):67–76.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2012.681221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Medical Library Association: Health Information Literacy. http://www.mlanet.org/resources/healthlit/define.html. Accessed 21 April 2018
  22. 22.
    Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K (2011) Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 155(2):97–107.  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Monkman H, Kushniruk AW (2015) eHealth literacy issues, constructs, models, and methods for health information technology design and evaluation. KM&EL 7(4):1–6Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Griffith J, Monkman H (2017) Usability and eHealth literacy evaluation of a mobile health application prototype to track diagnostic imaging examinations. Stud Health Technol Inf 234:150–155Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Monkman H, Griffith J, Kushniruk AW (2015) Evidence-based heuristics for evaluating demands on eHealth literacy and usability in a mobile consumer health application. Stud Health Technol Inform 216:358–362.  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-564-7-358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Monkman H, Kushniruk AW (2013) A health literacy and usability heuristic evaluation of a mobile consumer health application. Stud Health Technol Inf 192(1):724–728.  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-289-9-724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Piau A, Campo E, Rumeau P, Vellas B, Nourhashémi F (2014) Aging society and gerontechnology: a solution for an independent living? J Nutr Health Aging 18(1):97–112.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-013-0356-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Greenhalgh T, Russel J (2010) Why do evaluations of eHealth programs fail? An alternative set of guiding princiaples. PLoS Med 7(1000360).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000360
  29. 29.
    Matthew-Maich N, Harris L, Ploeg J, Markle-Reid M, Valaitis R, Ibrahim S, Gafni A, Isaacs S (2016) Designing, implementing, and evaluating mobile health technologies for managing chronic conditions in older adults: a scoping review. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 4(2).  https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.5127
  30. 30.
    Schnall R, Rojas M, Bakken S, Brown W, Carballo-Dieguez A, Carry M, Gelaude D, Moley J, Travers J (2016) A user-centered model for designing consumer mobile health applications. J Biomed Inf 60:243–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2016.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    LeRouge C, Wickramasinghe N (2013) A review of usercentered design for diabetes-related consumer health informatics technologies. J Diabetes Sci Technol 7(4):1039–1056.  https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681300700429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Andersen SB, Rasmussen CK, Frøkjær E (2017) Bringing content understanding into usability testing in complex application domains - a case study in eHealth. Des User Experience Usability Theor Methodol Manage 10288:327–341.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58634-2_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huvila I (2016) Taking health information behaviour into account the design of e-health services. Finnish J eHealth eWelfare 8(4):153–165Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bjering H, Curry J, Maeder A (2014) Gerontechnology: the importance of user participation in ICT development for older adults. Stud Health Technol Inform 204:7–12Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Karnøe Knudsen A, Kayser L (2016) Validation of the eHealth literacy assessment tool (eHLA). Inter J Integr Care 16(6):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.2897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kayser L, Kushniruk A, Osborne RH, Norgaard O, Turner P (2015) Enhancing the effectiveness of consumer-focused health information technology systems through eHealth literacy: a framework for understanding users’ needs. JMIR Hum Factors 2(1):1–13.  https://doi.org/10.2196/humanfactors.3696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kushniruk A, Turner P (2012) A framework for user involvement and context in the design and development of safe e-Health. Stud Health Technol Inform 180:353–357Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    ISO/IEC TR 9126-2 (2003) Software engineering: product quality Part 2: External metricsGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jamet E (2008) La compréhension des documents multimédias: de la cognition à la conception. Solal, MarseilleGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ganier F, Querrec R (2012) TIP-EWE: a software tool for studying the use and understanding of procedural documents. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 55(2):106–121.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2012.2194600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Graffigna G, Barello S, Riva G (2013) Technologies for patient engagement. Health Aff 32(1172).  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0279
  42. 42.
    Greene J, Hibbard JH (2012) Why does patient activation matter? an examination of the relationships between patient activation and health-related outcomes. J Gen Intern Med 27:520–526.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1931-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Barello S, Triberti S, Graffigna G, Libreri C, Serino S, Hibbard J, Riva G (2016) EHealth for patient engagement: a systematic review. Front Psychol 6(2013):1–13.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02013CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noémie Chaniaud
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emilie Loup-Escande
    • 1
  • Olga Megalakaki
    • 1
  1. 1.EA7273 CRP-CPO - Université de Jules Verne PicardieAmiensFrance

Personalised recommendations