背景:在促成医疗保健提供者与移动应用程序互动的众多因素中,包括用户特征(例如,灵巧,解剖学,和态度)和移动功能(例如,屏幕和按钮大小),应用程序的可用性和质量被认为是最有影响力的因素。
目的:本研究旨在调查医生的头部计算机断层扫描扫描适宜性标准(HAC)移动应用程序的可用性和质量。
方法:我们的研究设计主要基于方法学三角剖分,使用涉及定量和定性思考可用性测试的混合方法研究,用于质量评估的移动应用程序评级量表(MARS)的定量分析,和三个阶段的汇报。总的来说,16名医学实习生参加了质量评估和可用性特征测试,包括效率,有效性,可学习性,错误,以及对HAC应用程序的满意度。
结果:HAC应用程序的效率和有效性被认为令人满意,评分分别为97.8%和96.9%,分别。MARS评估量表显示了HAC应用程序的总体良好质量评分(100分中的82分)。评分4个MARS分量表,信息(100人中有73.37分)和参与度(100人中有73.48分)得分最低,而美学得分最高(100分中有87.86分)。对每个MARS子量表中项目的分析显示,在参与子量表中,HAC应用程序的最低得分是“定制”(100分中的63.6分)。在功能子刻度中,HAC应用程序的最低值是“性能”(100个中的67.4个)。HAC应用程序的定性思考可用性测试发现了值得注意的可用性问题,分为8个主要类别:缺乏手指友好的触摸目标,搜索能力差,输入问题,低效的数据表示和信息控制,不明确的控制和确认,缺乏预测能力,援助和支持不力,导航逻辑不清楚。
结论:使用混合方法方法评估移动应用程序的质量和可用性提供了有关其功能和缺点的有价值的信息。强烈建议在评估移动应用程序时采用更全面和混合的方法策略,因为单一方法的结果不完全反映了有关应用程序可用性和质量的可信和可靠的信息。
BACKGROUND: Among the numerous factors contributing to health care providers\' engagement with mobile apps, including user characteristics (eg, dexterity, anatomy, and attitude) and mobile features (eg, screen and button size), usability and quality of apps have been introduced as the most influential factors.
OBJECTIVE: This
study aims to investigate the usability and quality of the Head Computed Tomography Scan Appropriateness Criteria (HAC) mobile app for physicians\' computed tomography scan ordering.
METHODS: Our
study design was primarily based on methodological triangulation by using mixed methods research involving quantitative and qualitative think-aloud usability testing, quantitative analysis of the Mobile Apps Rating Scale (MARS) for quality assessment, and debriefing across 3 phases. In total, 16 medical interns participated in quality assessment and testing usability characteristics, including efficiency, effectiveness, learnability, errors, and satisfaction with the HAC app.
RESULTS: The efficiency and effectiveness of the HAC app were deemed satisfactory, with ratings of 97.8% and 96.9%, respectively. MARS assessment scale indicated the overall favorable quality score of the HAC app (82 out of 100). Scoring 4 MARS subscales, Information (73.37 out of 100) and Engagement (73.48 out of 100) had the lowest scores, while Aesthetics had the highest score (87.86 out of 100). Analysis of the items in each MARS subscale revealed that in the Engagement subscale, the lowest score of the HAC app was \"customization\" (63.6 out of 100). In the Functionality subscale, the HAC app\'s lowest value was \"performance\" (67.4 out of 100). Qualitative think-aloud usability testing of the HAC app found notable usability issues grouped into 8 main categories: lack of finger-friendly touch targets, poor search capabilities, input problems, inefficient data presentation and information control, unclear control and confirmation, lack of predictive capabilities, poor assistance and support, and unclear navigation logic.
CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating the quality and usability of mobile apps using a mixed methods approach provides valuable information about their functionality and disadvantages. It is highly recommended to embrace a more holistic and mixed methods strategy when evaluating mobile apps, because results from a single method imperfectly reflect trustworthy and reliable information regarding the usability and quality of apps.