⚡ Quick Summary
A recent scoping review examined the usability of sensor-based digital health technologies (sDHTs), highlighting significant gaps in current evaluation methodologies. The study emphasizes the need for a more comprehensive approach to usability assessment, including the perspectives of diverse user groups.
🔍 Key Details
- 📊 Study Period: 2013 to 2023
- 🔍 Total Papers Reviewed: 442 papers, with 83 eligible for data extraction
- 🧩 sDHTs Evaluated: 164 total, with 86% being wearable tools
- ⚙️ User Groups: 99% of studies captured data from end users, but only 22% included care partners or clinicians
🔑 Key Takeaways
- 📊 User Satisfaction: Evaluated for 83% of sDHTs
- 💡 Ease of Use: Assessed for 91% of sDHTs
- 🧩 Learnability, Efficiency, and Memorability: Reported for only 7%, 2%, and 1% of sDHTs, respectively
- 📉 Understandability and Actionability: Evaluated for only 9% of sDHTs
- 📊 Reporting Gaps: Sample size rationale was missing in 25% of studies
- 🌍 Sociodemographic Data: Complete data reported for only 17% of studies
- 🔄 Recommendations: In-depth usability assessments, broader recruitment, and improved reporting standards are essential
📚 Background
The rise of sensor-based digital health technologies (sDHTs) has transformed patient care and clinical trials. However, the integration of these technologies into diverse patient populations presents numerous challenges. Understanding the human factors and usability of these tools is crucial for their successful implementation and acceptance.
🗒️ Study
This scoping review aimed to explore the landscape of studies focusing on the human-centered design and usability of sDHTs. The authors systematically screened literature published over a decade, extracting key data related to study design, participant demographics, and usability metrics.
📈 Results
Out of 442 papers, 83 were eligible for analysis, revealing that 164 sDHTs were evaluated. Notably, 86% of these were wearable devices. While user satisfaction and ease of use were commonly assessed, critical usability aspects such as learnability and efficiency were largely overlooked. Furthermore, only a small fraction of studies included diverse user perspectives, indicating a significant gap in usability evaluation.
🌍 Impact and Implications
The findings of this review underscore the importance of a comprehensive approach to evaluating sDHTs. By addressing the identified gaps, researchers and developers can enhance the usability and acceptance of these technologies, ultimately improving patient outcomes. The recommendations provided can guide future studies to ensure that sDHTs are designed with the end user in mind, fostering better integration into clinical practice.
🔮 Conclusion
This scoping review highlights the critical need for a more thorough evaluation of sDHT usability. By expanding the focus beyond user satisfaction and including diverse user groups, we can pave the way for more effective and user-friendly digital health solutions. The future of healthcare technology depends on our ability to understand and address the needs of all users involved.
💬 Your comments
What are your thoughts on the usability of sensor-based digital health technologies? How can we improve their integration into patient care? 💬 Share your insights in the comments below or connect with us on social media:
Human Factors, Human-Centered Design, and Usability of Sensor-Based Digital Health Technologies: Scoping Review.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing adoption of sensor-based digital health technologies (sDHTs) in recent years has cast light on the many challenges in implementing these tools into clinical trials and patient care at scale across diverse patient populations; however, the methodological approaches taken toward sDHT usability evaluation have varied markedly.
OBJECTIVE: This review aims to explore the current landscape of studies reporting data related to sDHT human factors, human-centered design, and usability, to inform our concurrent work on developing an evaluation framework for sDHT usability.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of studies published between 2013 and 2023 and indexed in PubMed, in which data related to sDHT human factors, human-centered design, and usability were reported. Following a systematic screening process, we extracted the study design, participant sample, the sDHT or sDHTs used, the methods of data capture, and the types of usability-related data captured.
RESULTS: Our literature search returned 442 papers, of which 85 papers were found to be eligible and 83 papers were available for data extraction and not under embargo. In total, 164 sDHTs were evaluated; 141 (86%) sDHTs were wearable tools while the remaining 23 (14%) sDHTs were ambient tools. The majority of studies (55/83, 66%) reported summative evaluations of final-design sDHTs. Almost all studies (82/83, 99%) captured data from targeted end users, but only 18 (22%) out of 83 studies captured data from additional users such as care partners or clinicians. User satisfaction and ease of use were evaluated for 83% (136/164) and 91% (150/164) of sDHTs, respectively; however, learnability, efficiency, and memorability were reported for only 11 (7%), 4 (2%), and 2 (1%) out of 164 sDHTs, respectively. A total of 14 (9%) out of 164 sDHTs were evaluated according to the extent to which users were able to understand the clinical data or other information presented to them (understandability) or the actions or tasks they should complete in response (actionability). Notable gaps in reporting included the absence of a sample size rationale (reported for 21/83, 25% of all studies and 17/55, 31% of summative studies) and incomplete sociodemographic descriptive data (complete age, sex/gender, and race/ethnicity reported for 14/83, 17% of studies).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we suggest four actionable recommendations for future studies that will help to advance the implementation of sDHTs: (1) consider an in-depth assessment of technology usability beyond user satisfaction and ease of use, (2) expand recruitment to include important user groups such as clinicians and care partners, (3) report the rationale for key study design considerations including the sample size, and (4) provide rich descriptive statistics regarding the study sample to allow a complete understanding of generalizability to other patient populations and contexts of use.
Author: [‘Tandon A’, ‘Cobb B’, ‘Centra J’, ‘Izmailova E’, ‘Manyakov NV’, ‘McClenahan S’, ‘Patel S’, ‘Sezgin E’, ‘Vairavan S’, ‘Vrijens B’, ‘Bakker JP’, ‘Digital Health Measurement Collaborative Community (DATAcc) hosted by DiMe’]
Journal: J Med Internet Res
Citation: Tandon A, et al. Human Factors, Human-Centered Design, and Usability of Sensor-Based Digital Health Technologies: Scoping Review. Human Factors, Human-Centered Design, and Usability of Sensor-Based Digital Health Technologies: Scoping Review. 2024; 26:e57628. doi: 10.2196/57628