Cargando…

Comparison of the validity, perceived usefulness and usability of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS, two tools to evaluate alert system usability: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION: Research has shown that improvements to the usability of medication alert systems are needed. For designers and decisions-makers to assess usability of their alert systems, two paper-based tools are currently available: the instrument for evaluating human-factors principles in medicati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marcilly, Romaric, Zheng, Wu Yi, Beuscart, Regis, Baysari, Melissa T
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8344302/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34353806
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050448
_version_ 1783734461287890944
author Marcilly, Romaric
Zheng, Wu Yi
Beuscart, Regis
Baysari, Melissa T
author_facet Marcilly, Romaric
Zheng, Wu Yi
Beuscart, Regis
Baysari, Melissa T
author_sort Marcilly, Romaric
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Research has shown that improvements to the usability of medication alert systems are needed. For designers and decisions-makers to assess usability of their alert systems, two paper-based tools are currently available: the instrument for evaluating human-factors principles in medication-related decision support alerts (I-MeDeSA) and the tool for evaluating medication alerting systems (TEMAS). This study aims to compare the validity, usability and usefulness of both tools to identify their strengths and limitations and assist designers and decision-makers in making an informed decision about which tool is most suitable for assessing their current or prospective system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: First, TEMAS and I-MeDeSA will be translated into French. This translation will be validated by three experts in human factors. Then, in 12 French hospitals with a medication alert system in place, staff with expertise in the system will evaluate their alert system using the two tools successively. After the use of each tool, participants will be asked to fill in the System Usability Scale (SUS) and complete a survey on the understandability and perceived usefulness of each tool. Following the completion of both assessments, participants will be asked to nominate their preferred tool and relay their opinions on the tools. The design philosophy of TEMAS and I-MeDeSA differs on the calculation of a score, impacting the way the comparison between the tools can be performed. Convergent validity will be evaluated by matching the items of the two tools with respect to the usability dimensions they assess. SUS scores and answers to the survey will be statistically compared for I-MeDeSA and TEMAS to identify differences. Free-text responses in surveys will be analysed using an inductive approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required in France for a study of this nature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8344302
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83443022021-08-20 Comparison of the validity, perceived usefulness and usability of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS, two tools to evaluate alert system usability: a study protocol Marcilly, Romaric Zheng, Wu Yi Beuscart, Regis Baysari, Melissa T BMJ Open Health Informatics INTRODUCTION: Research has shown that improvements to the usability of medication alert systems are needed. For designers and decisions-makers to assess usability of their alert systems, two paper-based tools are currently available: the instrument for evaluating human-factors principles in medication-related decision support alerts (I-MeDeSA) and the tool for evaluating medication alerting systems (TEMAS). This study aims to compare the validity, usability and usefulness of both tools to identify their strengths and limitations and assist designers and decision-makers in making an informed decision about which tool is most suitable for assessing their current or prospective system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: First, TEMAS and I-MeDeSA will be translated into French. This translation will be validated by three experts in human factors. Then, in 12 French hospitals with a medication alert system in place, staff with expertise in the system will evaluate their alert system using the two tools successively. After the use of each tool, participants will be asked to fill in the System Usability Scale (SUS) and complete a survey on the understandability and perceived usefulness of each tool. Following the completion of both assessments, participants will be asked to nominate their preferred tool and relay their opinions on the tools. The design philosophy of TEMAS and I-MeDeSA differs on the calculation of a score, impacting the way the comparison between the tools can be performed. Convergent validity will be evaluated by matching the items of the two tools with respect to the usability dimensions they assess. SUS scores and answers to the survey will be statistically compared for I-MeDeSA and TEMAS to identify differences. Free-text responses in surveys will be analysed using an inductive approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required in France for a study of this nature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-08-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8344302/ /pubmed/34353806 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050448 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Health Informatics
Marcilly, Romaric
Zheng, Wu Yi
Beuscart, Regis
Baysari, Melissa T
Comparison of the validity, perceived usefulness and usability of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS, two tools to evaluate alert system usability: a study protocol
title Comparison of the validity, perceived usefulness and usability of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS, two tools to evaluate alert system usability: a study protocol
title_full Comparison of the validity, perceived usefulness and usability of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS, two tools to evaluate alert system usability: a study protocol
title_fullStr Comparison of the validity, perceived usefulness and usability of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS, two tools to evaluate alert system usability: a study protocol
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the validity, perceived usefulness and usability of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS, two tools to evaluate alert system usability: a study protocol
title_short Comparison of the validity, perceived usefulness and usability of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS, two tools to evaluate alert system usability: a study protocol
title_sort comparison of the validity, perceived usefulness and usability of i-medesa and temas, two tools to evaluate alert system usability: a study protocol
topic Health Informatics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8344302/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34353806
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050448
work_keys_str_mv AT marcillyromaric comparisonofthevalidityperceivedusefulnessandusabilityofimedesaandtemastwotoolstoevaluatealertsystemusabilityastudyprotocol
AT zhengwuyi comparisonofthevalidityperceivedusefulnessandusabilityofimedesaandtemastwotoolstoevaluatealertsystemusabilityastudyprotocol
AT beuscartregis comparisonofthevalidityperceivedusefulnessandusabilityofimedesaandtemastwotoolstoevaluatealertsystemusabilityastudyprotocol
AT baysarimelissat comparisonofthevalidityperceivedusefulnessandusabilityofimedesaandtemastwotoolstoevaluatealertsystemusabilityastudyprotocol