Iftikhar Aleeha, Bond Raymond R, McGilligan Victoria, Leslie Stephen J, Rjoob Khaled, Knoery Charles, Quigg Ciara, Campbell Ryan, Boyd Kyle, McShane Anne, Peace Aaron
Computing Engineering and Build Environment, Ulster University, Jordanstown, United Kingdom.
Centre for Personalised Medicine, Ulster University, Londonderry, United Kingdom.
JMIR Hum Factors. 2021 May 26;8(2):e25787. doi: 10.2196/25787.
Even in the era of digital technology, several hospitals still rely on paper-based forms for data entry for patient admission, triage, drug prescriptions, and procedures. Paper-based forms can be quick and convenient to complete but often at the expense of data quality, completeness, sustainability, and automated data analytics. Digital forms can improve data quality by assisting the user when deciding on the appropriate response to certain data inputs (eg, classifying symptoms). Greater data quality via digital form completion not only helps with auditing, service improvement, and patient record keeping but also helps with novel data science and machine learning research. Although digital forms are becoming more prevalent in health care, there is a lack of empirical best practices and guidelines for their design. The study-based hospital had a definite plan to abolish the paper form; hence, it was not necessary to compare the digital forms with the paper form.
This study aims to assess the usability of three different interactive forms: a single-page digital form (in which all data input is required on one web page), a multipage digital form, and a conversational digital form (a chatbot).
The three digital forms were developed as candidates to replace the current paper-based form used to record patient referrals to an interventional cardiology department (Cath-Lab) at Altnagelvin Hospital. We recorded usability data in a counterbalanced usability test (60 usability tests: 20 subjects×3 form usability tests). The usability data included task completion times, System Usability Scale (SUS) scores, User Experience Questionnaire data, and data from a postexperiment questionnaire.
We found that the single-page form outperformed the other two digital forms in almost all usability metrics. The mean SUS score for the single-page form was 76 (SD 15.8; P=.01) when compared with the multipage form, which had a mean score of 67 (SD 17), and the conversational form attained the lowest scores in usability testing and was the least preferred choice of users, with a mean score of 57 (SD 24). An SUS score of >68 was considered above average. The single-page form achieved the least task completion time compared with the other two digital form styles.
In conclusion, the digital single-page form outperformed the other two forms in almost all usability metrics; it had the least task completion time compared with those of the other two digital forms. Moreover, on answering the open-ended question from the final customized postexperiment questionnaire, the single-page form was the preferred choice.
即使在数字技术时代,仍有几家医院在患者入院、分诊、药物处方和诊疗程序等数据录入方面依赖纸质表格。纸质表格填写起来可能快速便捷,但往往以牺牲数据质量、完整性、可持续性和自动化数据分析为代价。数字表格可以通过在用户决定对某些数据输入的适当响应时提供帮助(例如,对症状进行分类)来提高数据质量。通过填写数字表格获得更高的数据质量不仅有助于审计、服务改进和患者记录保存,还有助于新的数据科学和机器学习研究。尽管数字表格在医疗保健领域越来越普遍,但在其设计方面缺乏实证最佳实践和指南。开展本研究的医院有明确的废除纸质表格的计划;因此,没有必要将数字表格与纸质表格进行比较。
本研究旨在评估三种不同交互式表格的可用性:单页数字表格(所有数据输入都在一个网页上完成)、多页数字表格和对话式数字表格(聊天机器人)。
开发这三种数字表格作为替代阿尔塔纳格尔文医院介入心脏病科(心导管室)用于记录患者转诊的现行纸质表格的候选方案。我们在平衡可用性测试(60次可用性测试:20名受试者×3种表格可用性测试)中记录了可用性数据。可用性数据包括任务完成时间、系统可用性量表(SUS)得分、用户体验调查问卷数据以及实验后调查问卷的数据。
我们发现,在几乎所有可用性指标方面,单页表格的表现均优于其他两种数字表格。与多页表格相比,单页表格的平均SUS得分为76(标准差15.8;P = 0.01),多页表格的平均得分为67(标准差17),而对话式表格在可用性测试中得分最低,是用户最不喜欢的选择,平均得分为57(标准差24)。SUS得分>68被认为高于平均水平。与其他两种数字表格样式相比,单页表格的任务完成时间最短。
总之,数字单页表格在几乎所有可用性指标方面均优于其他两种表格;与其他两种数字表格相比,它的任务完成时间最短。此外,在回答最终定制的实验后调查问卷中的开放式问题时,单页表格是首选。