Cargando…

Comprehensive Evaluation of User Interface for Ventilators Based on Respiratory Therapists’ Performance, Workload, and User Experience

BACKGROUND: Poor ergonomic design of ventilators can result in human errors. In this study, we evaluated the ergonomics of ventilators through respiratory therapists’ performance, workload, and user experience. MATERIAL/METHODS: Sixteen respiratory therapists were recruited to this usability study o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jiang, Mingyin, Liu, Shenglin, Gao, Jiaqi, Feng, Qingmin, Zhang, Qiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6319161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30552313
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.911853
_version_ 1783385024576356352
author Jiang, Mingyin
Liu, Shenglin
Gao, Jiaqi
Feng, Qingmin
Zhang, Qiang
author_facet Jiang, Mingyin
Liu, Shenglin
Gao, Jiaqi
Feng, Qingmin
Zhang, Qiang
author_sort Jiang, Mingyin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Poor ergonomic design of ventilators can result in human errors. In this study, we evaluated the ergonomics of ventilators through respiratory therapists’ performance, workload, and user experience. MATERIAL/METHODS: Sixteen respiratory therapists were recruited to this usability study of 3 ventilators. Participants had to perform 7 tasks on each ventilator. Respiratory therapists’ performance was measured by task errors of all tasks for each participant. Workload was measured by objective measurement (blink rate and duration) and by subjective measurement (NASA-TLX). User experience was assessed by the USE Questionnaire. RESULTS: For task errors, significant differences were found among ventilators (p<0.05) and the Evital 4 received higher task errors when compared to the Servo I (p<0.05). For blink rate, significant differences were found in tasks of starting the ventilator, ventilator monitoring values recognition, ventilator setting parameters modification, alarm parameter recognition, and resetting among ventilators (p<0.05). Furthermore, blink duration was also found to be significant differently in tasks of starting the ventilator, mode and setting parameters recognition, ventilator monitoring values recognition, ventilator mode modification, and alarm parameter recognition and resetting, as well as in the average of all tasks (p<0.05). For perceived workload, the Evital 4 received higher NASA-TLX scores among ventilators. For user experience, the Servo I received the highest scores on the USE Questionnaire among the ventilators. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides a comprehensive evaluation method of user interface based on respiratory therapists’ performance, workload, and user experience. In addition, this study suggests that the ergonomic design of the Evital 4 is poor. Finally, we found that eye motion (blink rate and duration) may be useful to assess the ergonomics of a user interface.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6319161
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher International Scientific Literature, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63191612019-01-24 Comprehensive Evaluation of User Interface for Ventilators Based on Respiratory Therapists’ Performance, Workload, and User Experience Jiang, Mingyin Liu, Shenglin Gao, Jiaqi Feng, Qingmin Zhang, Qiang Med Sci Monit Clinical Research BACKGROUND: Poor ergonomic design of ventilators can result in human errors. In this study, we evaluated the ergonomics of ventilators through respiratory therapists’ performance, workload, and user experience. MATERIAL/METHODS: Sixteen respiratory therapists were recruited to this usability study of 3 ventilators. Participants had to perform 7 tasks on each ventilator. Respiratory therapists’ performance was measured by task errors of all tasks for each participant. Workload was measured by objective measurement (blink rate and duration) and by subjective measurement (NASA-TLX). User experience was assessed by the USE Questionnaire. RESULTS: For task errors, significant differences were found among ventilators (p<0.05) and the Evital 4 received higher task errors when compared to the Servo I (p<0.05). For blink rate, significant differences were found in tasks of starting the ventilator, ventilator monitoring values recognition, ventilator setting parameters modification, alarm parameter recognition, and resetting among ventilators (p<0.05). Furthermore, blink duration was also found to be significant differently in tasks of starting the ventilator, mode and setting parameters recognition, ventilator monitoring values recognition, ventilator mode modification, and alarm parameter recognition and resetting, as well as in the average of all tasks (p<0.05). For perceived workload, the Evital 4 received higher NASA-TLX scores among ventilators. For user experience, the Servo I received the highest scores on the USE Questionnaire among the ventilators. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides a comprehensive evaluation method of user interface based on respiratory therapists’ performance, workload, and user experience. In addition, this study suggests that the ergonomic design of the Evital 4 is poor. Finally, we found that eye motion (blink rate and duration) may be useful to assess the ergonomics of a user interface. International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2018-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6319161/ /pubmed/30552313 http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.911853 Text en © Med Sci Monit, 2018 This work is licensed under Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) )
spellingShingle Clinical Research
Jiang, Mingyin
Liu, Shenglin
Gao, Jiaqi
Feng, Qingmin
Zhang, Qiang
Comprehensive Evaluation of User Interface for Ventilators Based on Respiratory Therapists’ Performance, Workload, and User Experience
title Comprehensive Evaluation of User Interface for Ventilators Based on Respiratory Therapists’ Performance, Workload, and User Experience
title_full Comprehensive Evaluation of User Interface for Ventilators Based on Respiratory Therapists’ Performance, Workload, and User Experience
title_fullStr Comprehensive Evaluation of User Interface for Ventilators Based on Respiratory Therapists’ Performance, Workload, and User Experience
title_full_unstemmed Comprehensive Evaluation of User Interface for Ventilators Based on Respiratory Therapists’ Performance, Workload, and User Experience
title_short Comprehensive Evaluation of User Interface for Ventilators Based on Respiratory Therapists’ Performance, Workload, and User Experience
title_sort comprehensive evaluation of user interface for ventilators based on respiratory therapists’ performance, workload, and user experience
topic Clinical Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6319161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30552313
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.911853
work_keys_str_mv AT jiangmingyin comprehensiveevaluationofuserinterfaceforventilatorsbasedonrespiratorytherapistsperformanceworkloadanduserexperience
AT liushenglin comprehensiveevaluationofuserinterfaceforventilatorsbasedonrespiratorytherapistsperformanceworkloadanduserexperience
AT gaojiaqi comprehensiveevaluationofuserinterfaceforventilatorsbasedonrespiratorytherapistsperformanceworkloadanduserexperience
AT fengqingmin comprehensiveevaluationofuserinterfaceforventilatorsbasedonrespiratorytherapistsperformanceworkloadanduserexperience
AT zhangqiang comprehensiveevaluationofuserinterfaceforventilatorsbasedonrespiratorytherapistsperformanceworkloadanduserexperience