Comparison of evaluation methods for improving the usability of a Spanish mHealth tool

OBJECTIVE

Mobile health (mHealth) technology is now widely used across health conditions and populations. The rigorous development of these tools has yielded improved health outcomes, yet the ideal approach for developing mHealth tools continues to evolve, indicating the need for rigorous usability evaluation methods. This study compares two usability evaluation methods - cognitive interviews and usability assessments employing a think-aloud approach - for adapting an evidence-based mHealth tool from English into Spanish.

METHODS

We conducted cognitive interviews and usability assessments using a think-aloud protocol to evaluate the usability of an HIV mHealth application among 40 Spanish-speaking adults with HIV in New York City, NY, and La Romana, Dominican Republic. The Health IT Usability Evaluation Model (Health-ITUEM) was used to guide the analysis of qualitative data collected from each method.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 40) averaged 43 years old (SD = 12.26; range 20-79), identified primarily Hispanic/Latino (92.5 %), and resided in La Romana (50 %) or New York City (50 %). Both usability evaluation methods yielded similar findings, highlighting learnability and information needs as crucial components of participant feedback for the mHealth application. Cognitive interviews captured participants' perspectives on the app's interface and design. On the other hand, results from usability assessments offered insights into participants' competency while interacting with the mHealth tool.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study highlight the contributions and limitations of including cognitive interviews and task-based usability assessments using a think-aloud approach in mHealth usability testing. Future research should employ a multi-method approach, incorporating complementary usability evaluation methods and engaging participants in multiple assessments. Using complementary usability evaluation methods may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the usability and participant experience aspects of a mHealth tool compared to using a single usability evaluation method.

Comparison of two heuristic evaluation methods for evaluating the usability of health information systems

OBJECTIVES

In addition to following the usual Heuristic Evaluation (HE) method, the usability of health information systems can also be evaluated using a checklist. The objective of this study is to compare the performance of these two methods in identifying usability problems of health information systems.

METHODS

Eight evaluators independently evaluated different parts of a Medical Records Information System using two methods of HE (usual and with a checklist). The two methods were compared in terms of the number of problems identified, problem type, and the severity of identified problems.

RESULTS

In all, 192 usability problems were identified by two methods in the Medical Records Information System. This was significantly higher than the number of usability problems identified by the checklist and usual method (148 and 92, respectively) (p < 0.0001). After removing the duplicates, the difference between the number of unique usability problems identified by the checklist method (n = 100) and usual method (n = 44) was significant (p < 0.0001). Differences between the mean severity of the real usability problems (1.83) and those identified by only one of the methods (usual = 2.05, checklist = 1.74) were significant (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed the potential of the two HE methods for identifying usability problems of health information systems. The results demonstrated that the checklist method had significantly better performance in terms of the number of identified usability problems; however, the performance of the usual method for identifying problems of higher severity was significantly better. Although the checklist method can be more efficient for less experienced evaluators, wherever usability is critical, the checklist should be used with caution in usability evaluations.