User-centered Design of a PHR: Traditional Web Forms vs. Wizard Forms [5 Cr2 1100 Purin]
-
Upload
gunther-eysenbach -
Category
Health & Medicine
-
view
2.350 -
download
0
Transcript of User-centered Design of a PHR: Traditional Web Forms vs. Wizard Forms [5 Cr2 1100 Purin]
Purin, B. et al.:User-centered Design of a PHR: Traditional Web Forms vs. Wizard Forms
• This slideshow, presented at Medicine 2.0’08, Sept 4/5th, 2008, in Toronto, was uploaded on behalf of the presenter by the Medicine 2.0 team
• Do not miss the next Medicine 2.0 congress on 17/18th Sept 2009(www.medicine20congress.com)
• Order Audio Recordings (mp3) of Medicine 2.0’08 presentations at http://www.medicine20congress.com/mp3.php
User-centered Design of a PHR:
Traditional Web Forms vs. Wizard Forms
Barbara Purin and Emiliano Ricci
FBK, Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
Friday, September 5, 2008
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
The Department of Health
and the Department of Research and Innovation
of the Autonomous Province of Trento (NE Italy)
have funded a feasibility study of a
Personal Health Information Management (PHIM) System
for the citizens living in the Province.
PHIM refers to activities that support
consumers’ access, integration, organization,
and use of their personal health information.
PHIM activities rely on the collection and management
of one’s own personal health information collected
from each health care provider
plus any health information you want to add.
The Autonomous Province of Trento
The Department of Health
Andrea Civan, Meredith M.
Skeels, Anna Stolyar and Wanda
Pratt, Personal Health
Information Management: Consumers’
Perspectives. AMIA Annu Symp
Proc. 2006; 2006: 156-160
Considerable effort was dedicated to guide and support the management of
health information in the System design phase.
Friday, September 5, 2008
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
- Exploring the effectiveness of the traditional web
forms vs. wizard step-by-step structure;
- gathering information about problems that users may
encounter when interacting with such interfaces;
- understanding which system, if any, improve more the
data entry process and attracts more users.
We focused on testing usability and
user experience of two user interfaces
designed and developed to support
citizens to maintain drugs’
information themselves.
Input data forms and navigation
are crucial elements;
they would be used consistently
in order not to compromise the use of the
System.
REMARKS:
Widespread and extensive use of traditional and
wizard form layouts for data
input and configuration in
Web applications.
Friday, September 5, 2008
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
PHASE 1: Informal early evaluation of each user interface
- think-aloud technique: observing users while surfing the prototypes and filling the data input forms;
- post-task questionnaire based on a Likert-type scale for assessing user satisfaction;
- debriefing semi-structure interview for exploring subjective user experience behind what was previously observed.
PHASE 2: Formal evaluation based on the comparison of the two user interfaces
Friday, September 5, 2008
- Interactive, software-based prototypes;
- scenario prototypes.
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
Scenario prototypes are task oriented;
we decided to fully implemented two important tasks
that cut through the functionalities of the prototypes.
No differences between the prototypes
as regards the content.
Friday, September 5, 2008
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
Stories of common real life drug prescription:
- recording a new therapy and specify drug dosage;
- recording a therapy evaluation.
Task #1, Recording a new therapy
Goals: entering new therapy data (drug name, confection, reason for consumption, therapy start date); the task is complete when the form is filled and saved (data are displayed in a not-editable format ).Inputs: --- Assumptions: ---Steps: the user has to (…)
Friday, September 5, 2008
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
- overview of all requested information;
- data fields can be filled at any order;
- need of vertical scrollbar;
- check values before saving data.
THE TRADITIONAL WEB FORM BASED USER INTERFACE (briefly ‘TRADITIONAL UI’)
ALL DATA IN A SINGLE PAGE
A screenshot of the prototype.
Friday, September 5, 2008
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
DATA PRESENTED IN A STEP-BY-STEP
STRUCTURE
- list of data entered previously by the user on the top of the page;
- ordered sequence of small input data forms;
- NO need of vertical scrollbar;
- check values inserted in the form before moving from one step to the next one. A screenshot of the prototype.
Friday, September 5, 2008
THE WIZARD WEB FORM BASED USER INTERFACE (briefly ‘WIZARD UI’)
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
e-Health researchers and software engineers (8 people) working in the Bruno Kessler Foundation (FBK) and not involved in this work,
were asked to find the usability problems with the interfaces
without specifying any set of general principles to follow.
- they were asked to review the system interfaces and to perform the tasks by working separately and without assistance;
- a brainstorming was then performed to point out problems and
suggestions.
THE EVALUATION PROCESS:
We were
interested in
the point of
view of skilled
users with no
training or
experience in
usability
engineering.
Friday, September 5, 2008
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
CONTENT: some specific, local problems as regards labels, combo boxes’ values, and radio buttons;
NAVIGATION: navigation problems from screen to screen; drug information needed to being organized in Main data, Dosage, and Therapy evaluation web tabs;
reminder functionalities about end therapy and drug assumption were added to the prototypes.
At the end of
this evaluation,
the two
prototypes
were refined
according to
the comments
and
suggestions.
Friday, September 5, 2008
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
8 participants [1] (women) recruited among the administrative personnel of the Bruno Kessler Foundation (FBK).
INCLUSION CRITERION: skill in using the web (use of Internet from more than 1 yearand for at least 1 hour per week)
[1] Nielsen, J. “Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users”, http://www.useit.com
Age range (years)19-2930-3940-49
More than 50
3140
Educational qualificationHigh school
Univesity53
Internet experienceLess than one year
More than one year08
Time spent using the internetLess then 3 hours per week
3-6 hours per weekMore than 6 hours per week
242
Reason for using the InternetOnly at homeOnly at work
Both
044
Usability test participants’ characteristics
COMPARISON TEST: - 4 of them used first the traditional UI and then the wizard UI; - the others used first the wizard UI and then the traditional UI.
Friday, September 5, 2008
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
DATA GATHERING: reports were transcribed in a world processing file;
a content analysis was performed.
Users were encouraged to “think aloud” commenting on any difficultiesthey encountered while performing the tasks.
(Kushniruk, A.W., & Patel, V.L. (2004). Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems. Journal of Buomedical Informatics, 37, 56-76)
CODING CATEGORIES:
navigation, graphics, layout/screen organization, color,
resolution, meaning of labels,
understanding of system instruction/error messages,
consistency of operations, overall ease of use,
response time, visibility of system status,
data not displayed, data entry
Friday, September 5, 2008
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
Friday, September 5, 2008
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
navig
ation
grap
hics
layo
ut/ s
cree
n org
aniza
tion
color
reso
lutio
n
mea
ning o
f lab
els
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
sys
tem
instr
uctio
n/ e
rror m
essa
ges
cons
isten
cy o
f ope
ratio
ns
over
all eas
e of u
se
resp
onse
time
visib
ility
of s
yste
m s
tatu
s
data
not
disp
laye
d
data
ent
ry
Category of usability problems
Fre
qu
ency
Traditional UI Wizard UI
Total usability problems
by category
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
Friday, September 5, 2008
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
navig
ation
layo
ut/ s
cree
n org
aniza
tion
reso
lutio
n
mea
ning o
f lab
els
over
all eas
e of u
se
visib
ility
of s
yste
m s
tatu
s
data
not
disp
laye
d
data
ent
ry
Category of usability problems
Fre
qu
ency
Traditional UI Wizard UI
- Chart 1 -
Usability problems funded by the subgroup of participants that used first the traditional UI and then the wizard UI.
- Chart 2 -
Usability problems funded by the subgroup of participants that used first the wizard UI and then the traditional UI.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Category of usability problemsF
req
uen
cy
Wizard UI Traditional UI
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
At the end of the tasks, users were asked to fill a questionnaire for assessing user satisfaction.
USER & SYSTEM INTERFACE
QUESTION
User A User B User C User D User E User F User G User Hp = traditional web formw = wizard web form
p w w p p w w p p w w p p w w p
MEAN p MEAN w
easy to understand -1 -1 -3 0 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 -2 -1 0,625 0,125
easy to use 1 1 3 2 -1 2 -1 -2 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 1,5
intuitive 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 -1 2 2 2 -2 -2 0,75 0,625
interesting 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 -2 1 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 0,875 1,75
clear -1 -1 2 2 1 2 -1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1,125 1
comfortable -1 -1 2 2 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 0,75 1
engaging 3 3 2 2 0 2 1 -2 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0,875 1,375
satysfying -1 -1 2 2 2 2 -1 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 0,875 0,75
I like 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 -2 2 -2 0 2 3 1 0 0 1,25 0,75
pleasant -2 -1 3 3 2 2 2 -1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1,125 1,625
MEAN (range [-3,3]) 0,1 0,2 1,8 1,8 0,8 2 0,4 -0,3 1,3 1,3 0,4 1 2,3 1,7 0,6 0,4 0,925 1,05
COLLECTED DATA: questions were based on the seven-point Linkert semantic scale; each response was converted to a numerical value in the range [-3,3].
FINDINGS: the user satisfaction is basically positive (1);no statistical differences between the two interfaces (2).
Friday, September 5, 2008
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
User’s opinions about the preferred interface were gathered during the debriefing phase of the tests.
FINDIGS:
Friday, September 5, 2008
WEB FORM LAYOUT # PREFERENCES REASON
TRADITIONAL WEB FORM
3 more comfortable; (plenty of) data in a single page (“in a wizard form I don’t know which information will be required in the following step”); data are aggregated;
WIZARD WEB FORM 4 “it is easier to use”; data are entered step-by-step; it calls your attention on the data you are entering; “I see both data entered previously and information required by the form to be filled”
1 user was not able to state the preferred interface because in her opinion the two interfaces were similar.
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
No one user interface seems to prevail against the other.
The most frequent usability issues encountered by the users were related to clearly-defined content and navigation problems.
Friday, September 5, 2008
The incidental preference coming from the debriefing interview was founded on subjective impressions.
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
Repeated cycles of design-testing-measure-redesign allow pointing out wrong design assumption about a system
that could cause usability problems later.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Comparison tests (different prototypes matched against each other)avoid to commit too early to one design that could reveal its faults only later.
The two prototypes are going to be refined according to the founded usability issues;
then a usability test with participants (both women and men) less skilled in using the web will be performed.
It could be interesting to evaluate the two interfaces after people have used one of them for a period of time.
http://www.fbk.eu
http://ehealth.fbk.eu
e-HealthApplied Research Unit
Thank youfor your attention
Friday, September 5, 2008