Analysis and Improvement of the Usability of a Tele-Rehabilitation Platform for Hip Surgery Patients

  • Hennry PilcoEmail author
  • Sandra Sanchez-Gordon
  • Tania Calle-Jimenez
  • Yves Rybarczyk
  • Janio Jadán
  • Santiago Villarreal
  • Wilmer Esparza
  • Patricia Acosta-Vargas
  • César Guevara
  • Isabel L. Nunes
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 781)


The Tele-Rehabilitation platform for hip surgery allows patients to carry out part of their rehabilitation at home, without the need to travel long distances to a rehabilitation centre. A lack of usability that may prevent effectiveness, efficiency, and the satisfaction of patients, may lead to problems of confusion, error and delay, or even abandonment of the physical therapy. To perform the usability analysis, a set of heuristics were selected relating to aspects such as navigation, visual clarity, coherence, prevention of errors, user guidance, online help and user control. A cognitive walkthrough technique was also applied. With the results of the analysis, the design and implementation of improvements were performed. The web interfaces of the Tele-Rehabilitation platform were evaluated once again and compared with the baseline to ensure there was an improvement in usability.


Telemedicine Tele-rehabilitation Hip surgery Web user interface Usability evaluation Heuristic evaluation Cognitive walkthrough evaluation 



This research has been partially supported by the Consorcio Ecuatoriano para el Desarrollo de Internet Avanzado (CEDIA).


  1. 1.
    Rybarczyk, Y., Deters, J., Cointe, C., Arián, G., Esparza, D.: Telerehabilitation platform for hip surgery recovery. In: Conference Second Ecuador Technical Chapters Meeting (ETCM). IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO 9241-171. Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Guidance on software accessibility (2012).
  3. 3.
    Negrete-Corona, J., Alvarado-Soriano, J.C., Reyes-Santiago, L.A.: Fractura de cadera como factor de riesgo en la mortalidad en pacientes mayores de 65 años. Acta Ortopédica Mexicana 28(6), 352–362 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elena, G.: Evaluación de la estancia hospitalaria en prótesis de cadera (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Third AJRR Annual Report on Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Data (2016).
  6. 6.
    Afonso, A., Lima, L., Perez, M.: A avaliação da usabilida de de interfaces Web. A Investigação do sítio Web da secretaria de uma escola do Ensino Superior. Comput. Sci. Eng. 25–32 (2012).
  7. 7.
    Gulati, A., Sanjay, K.: Critical analysis on usability evaluation techniques. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. (IJEST) 4, 990–997 (2012). Computer Science and Engineering DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xiao, L., Yan, X., Emery, A.: Design and evaluation of web interfaces for informal care providers in senior monitoring (2013).
  9. 9.
    Lim, C., Hae-Deok, S., Lee, Y.: Improving the usability of the user interface for a digital textbook platform for elementary-school students. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 60, 159–173 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proceeding CHI 1990 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alotaibi, M.B.: Assessing the usability of university websites in Saudi Arabia: a heuristic evaluation approach. In: 10th International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ivanc, D., Vasiu, R., Onita, M.: Usability evaluation of a LMS mobile web interface. ResearchGate (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rusu, C., Roncagliolo, S., Rusu, V., Collazos, C.: A methodology to establish usability heuristics. In: The Fourth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quiñones, D., Rusu, C.: How to develop usability heuristics: a systematic literature review. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 53, 89–122 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schaarup, C., Hangaard, S., Hejlesen, O.: Cognitive walkthrough: an element in system development and evaluation – experiences from the eWALL telehealth system. In: Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems/International Conference on Project MANagement/Conference on Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies, CENTERIS/ProjMAN/HCist (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahatody, T., Sagar, M., Kolski, C.: State of the art on the cognitive walkthrough method, its variants and evolutions. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 26(8), 741–785 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kushniruk, A., Monkman, H., Tuden, D., Bellwood, P., Borycki, E.: Integrating heuristic evaluation with cognitive walkthrough: development of a hybrid usability inspection method. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 208, 221–225 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ATLAS.ti: Qualitative analysis tool (2018).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hennry Pilco
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sandra Sanchez-Gordon
    • 2
  • Tania Calle-Jimenez
    • 2
  • Yves Rybarczyk
    • 3
    • 4
  • Janio Jadán
    • 5
  • Santiago Villarreal
    • 3
  • Wilmer Esparza
    • 3
  • Patricia Acosta-Vargas
    • 3
  • César Guevara
    • 5
  • Isabel L. Nunes
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Escuela Politécnica NacionalQuitoEcuador
  2. 2.Department of Informatics and Computer ScienceEscuela Politécnica NacionalQuitoEcuador
  3. 3.Intelligent & Interactive Systems LabUniversidad de Las AméricasQuitoEcuador
  4. 4.CTS/UNINOVA, DEENova University of LisbonMonte de CaparicaPortugal
  5. 5.Universidad Tecnológica IndoaméricaAmbatoEcuador
  6. 6.Faculty of Science and TechnologyUniversidade NOVA de LisboaCaparicaPortugal
  7. 7.UNIDEMICaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations