背景:数据仪表板是发布的工具,用于呈现可视化;它们越来越多地用于显示有关行为健康的数据,健康的社会决定因素,以及慢性和传染病风险,以告知或支持公共卫生工作。仪表板可以是社区使用的基于证据的方法,以影响特定人群的医疗保健决策。尽管广泛使用,关于如何在公共卫生领域最好地设计和使用仪表板的证据是有限的。还有一个明显的缺乏研究来检查和记录社区环境中仪表板的复杂性和异质性。
目的:参与社区应对阿片类药物过量危机的社区利益相关者可以从使用数据仪表板进行决策中受益。作为治愈社区(CTH)干预的一部分,社区数据仪表板是为利益相关者创建的,以支持决策。我们评估了利益相关者对CTH仪表板用于决策的可用性和使用的看法。
方法:我们在2021年6月至7月之间对CTH仪表板的使用进行了混合方法评估。我们管理了系统可用性量表(SUS),并对美国4个州的33个社区的用户进行了半结构化小组访谈。SUS包括10个测量可用性的五个李克特量表问题,每个得分从0到4。面试指南由技术采用模型(TAM)提供信息,并侧重于感知的有用性,感知到的易用性,打算使用,和上下文因素。
结果:总体而言,CTH仪表板的62个用户完成了SUS和访谈。SUS评分(总平均值73,SD4.6)表明CTH仪表板在可用性的可接受范围内。从定性的采访数据来看,我们在TAM的4个维度中归纳地创建了子主题,以将利益相关者对仪表板的有用性和易用性的看法进行上下文化,他们使用的意图,和上下文因素。这些数据还突出了知识方面的差距,设计,和使用,这可以帮助集中精力改善利益相关者对仪表板的使用和理解。
结论:我们介绍了我们国家小组确定的一系列优先差距,并列出了为社区利益相关者改进数据仪表板设计和使用所吸取的一系列经验教训。我们对SUS和TAM的新颖应用的发现提供了见解,并突出了重要的差距和经验教训,为决策社区利益相关者提供了数据仪表板的设计。
背景:ClinicalTrials.govNCT04111939;https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04111939。
BACKGROUND: Data dashboards are published tools that present visualizations; they are increasingly used to display data about behavioral health, social determinants of health, and chronic and infectious disease risks to inform or support public health endeavors. Dashboards can be an evidence-based approach used by communities to influence decision-making in health care for specific populations. Despite widespread use, evidence on how to best design and use dashboards in the public health realm is limited. There is also a notable dearth of studies that examine and document the complexity and heterogeneity of dashboards in community settings.
OBJECTIVE: Community stakeholders engaged in the community response to the opioid overdose crisis could benefit from the use of data dashboards for decision-making. As part of the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention, community data dashboards were created for stakeholders to support decision-making. We assessed stakeholders\' perceptions of the usability and use of the CTH dashboards for decision-making.
METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods assessment between June and July 2021 on the use of CTH dashboards. We administered the System Usability Scale (SUS) and conducted semistructured group interviews with users in 33 communities across 4 states of the United States. The SUS comprises 10 five-point Likert-scale questions measuring usability, each scored from 0 to 4. The interview guides were informed by the technology adoption model (TAM) and focused on perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, intention to use, and contextual factors.
RESULTS: Overall, 62 users of the CTH dashboards completed the SUS and interviews. SUS scores (grand mean 73, SD 4.6) indicated that CTH dashboards were within the acceptable range for usability. From the qualitative interview data, we inductively created subthemes within the 4 dimensions of the TAM to contextualize stakeholders\' perceptions of the dashboard\'s usefulness and ease of use, their intention to use, and contextual factors. These data also highlighted gaps in knowledge, design, and use, which could help focus efforts to improve the use and comprehension of dashboards by stakeholders.
CONCLUSIONS: We present a set of prioritized gaps identified by our national group and list a set of lessons learned for improved data dashboard design and use for community stakeholders. Findings from our novel application of both the SUS and TAM provide insights and highlight important gaps and lessons learned to inform the design of data dashboards for use by decision-making community stakeholders.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04111939; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04111939.