Qualitative evidence synthesis of included studies (n = 13/23): usability-related themes and codes of facilitators of adoption, by usability method category
| Themes . | Q . | U . | I . | H . | Codes . | Q . | U . | I . | H . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automaticity | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5 | Automatic functioning | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5 |
| User interface design | 5 | 2 | 13 | 7 | Ability to correct mistake error | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Clear design | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| Few problems | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Good design | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |||||
| Good internal (app) flow | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Simple design | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||
| Familiarity with technology | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | |||||
| Size and shape of device | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Efficiency | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 | Time efficiency | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 |
| Feasibility | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | Feasible to implement | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Minimally disruptive to work flow | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | |||||
| Learnability | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | Learnability and intuitiveness | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Patient benefit | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | Patient benefit including noninvasive | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Trustworthiness | 1 | 1 | 15 | 5 | Improves safety | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 |
| Accuracy | 0 | 1 | 7 | 1 | |||||
| Improves trust | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| Multiple types of people approve | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Thoroughness systematic | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Ease of use | 5 | 0 | 7 | 0 | Comforting | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Convenience | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Easy to use | 3 | 0 | 7 | 0 | |||||
| Usefulness | 3 | 0 | 28 | 8 | Adds knowledge | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Help diagnosis | 0 | 0 | 7 | 2 | |||||
| Helpful for communication | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | |||||
| Helpful for inexperienced clinicians | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| Helpful for work | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | |||||
| Important information prominent to user | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |||||
| Improves assessment | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |||||
| Improves patient management | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Leads to increased demand for services | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Reduces paperwork | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Useful | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |||||
| Useful in other contexts | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| User experience | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | Novelty of technology | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Practice and instruction | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||
| Good user experience | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Preference compared to current method | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Word of mouth positive | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Would use again | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Total themes identified | 5 | 4 | 10 | 6 | Total codes identified | 15 | 7 | 97 | 29 |
| Themes missed | 5 | 6 | 0 | 4 | Codes missed | 30 | 35 | 5 | 24 |
| Proportion identified (n = 8) | 50% | 40% | 100% | 60% | Proportion identified (n = 40) | 25% | 13% | 88% | 40% |
| Themes . | Q . | U . | I . | H . | Codes . | Q . | U . | I . | H . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automaticity | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5 | Automatic functioning | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5 |
| User interface design | 5 | 2 | 13 | 7 | Ability to correct mistake error | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Clear design | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| Few problems | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Good design | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |||||
| Good internal (app) flow | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Simple design | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||
| Familiarity with technology | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | |||||
| Size and shape of device | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Efficiency | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 | Time efficiency | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 |
| Feasibility | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | Feasible to implement | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Minimally disruptive to work flow | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | |||||
| Learnability | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | Learnability and intuitiveness | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Patient benefit | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | Patient benefit including noninvasive | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Trustworthiness | 1 | 1 | 15 | 5 | Improves safety | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 |
| Accuracy | 0 | 1 | 7 | 1 | |||||
| Improves trust | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| Multiple types of people approve | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Thoroughness systematic | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Ease of use | 5 | 0 | 7 | 0 | Comforting | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Convenience | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Easy to use | 3 | 0 | 7 | 0 | |||||
| Usefulness | 3 | 0 | 28 | 8 | Adds knowledge | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Help diagnosis | 0 | 0 | 7 | 2 | |||||
| Helpful for communication | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | |||||
| Helpful for inexperienced clinicians | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| Helpful for work | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | |||||
| Important information prominent to user | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |||||
| Improves assessment | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |||||
| Improves patient management | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Leads to increased demand for services | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Reduces paperwork | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Useful | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |||||
| Useful in other contexts | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| User experience | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | Novelty of technology | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Practice and instruction | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||
| Good user experience | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Preference compared to current method | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Word of mouth positive | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Would use again | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Total themes identified | 5 | 4 | 10 | 6 | Total codes identified | 15 | 7 | 97 | 29 |
| Themes missed | 5 | 6 | 0 | 4 | Codes missed | 30 | 35 | 5 | 24 |
| Proportion identified (n = 8) | 50% | 40% | 100% | 60% | Proportion identified (n = 40) | 25% | 13% | 88% | 40% |
Q: questionnaire; U: user testing; I: interview; H: heuristic evaluation studies.
Qualitative evidence synthesis of included studies (n = 13/23): usability-related themes and codes of facilitators of adoption, by usability method category
| Themes . | Q . | U . | I . | H . | Codes . | Q . | U . | I . | H . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automaticity | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5 | Automatic functioning | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5 |
| User interface design | 5 | 2 | 13 | 7 | Ability to correct mistake error | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Clear design | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| Few problems | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Good design | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |||||
| Good internal (app) flow | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Simple design | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||
| Familiarity with technology | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | |||||
| Size and shape of device | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Efficiency | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 | Time efficiency | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 |
| Feasibility | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | Feasible to implement | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Minimally disruptive to work flow | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | |||||
| Learnability | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | Learnability and intuitiveness | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Patient benefit | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | Patient benefit including noninvasive | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Trustworthiness | 1 | 1 | 15 | 5 | Improves safety | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 |
| Accuracy | 0 | 1 | 7 | 1 | |||||
| Improves trust | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| Multiple types of people approve | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Thoroughness systematic | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Ease of use | 5 | 0 | 7 | 0 | Comforting | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Convenience | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Easy to use | 3 | 0 | 7 | 0 | |||||
| Usefulness | 3 | 0 | 28 | 8 | Adds knowledge | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Help diagnosis | 0 | 0 | 7 | 2 | |||||
| Helpful for communication | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | |||||
| Helpful for inexperienced clinicians | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| Helpful for work | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | |||||
| Important information prominent to user | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |||||
| Improves assessment | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |||||
| Improves patient management | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Leads to increased demand for services | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Reduces paperwork | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Useful | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |||||
| Useful in other contexts | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| User experience | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | Novelty of technology | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Practice and instruction | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||
| Good user experience | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Preference compared to current method | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Word of mouth positive | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Would use again | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Total themes identified | 5 | 4 | 10 | 6 | Total codes identified | 15 | 7 | 97 | 29 |
| Themes missed | 5 | 6 | 0 | 4 | Codes missed | 30 | 35 | 5 | 24 |
| Proportion identified (n = 8) | 50% | 40% | 100% | 60% | Proportion identified (n = 40) | 25% | 13% | 88% | 40% |
| Themes . | Q . | U . | I . | H . | Codes . | Q . | U . | I . | H . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automaticity | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5 | Automatic functioning | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5 |
| User interface design | 5 | 2 | 13 | 7 | Ability to correct mistake error | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Clear design | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| Few problems | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Good design | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |||||
| Good internal (app) flow | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Simple design | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||
| Familiarity with technology | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | |||||
| Size and shape of device | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Efficiency | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 | Time efficiency | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 |
| Feasibility | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | Feasible to implement | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Minimally disruptive to work flow | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | |||||
| Learnability | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | Learnability and intuitiveness | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Patient benefit | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | Patient benefit including noninvasive | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Trustworthiness | 1 | 1 | 15 | 5 | Improves safety | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 |
| Accuracy | 0 | 1 | 7 | 1 | |||||
| Improves trust | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| Multiple types of people approve | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Thoroughness systematic | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Ease of use | 5 | 0 | 7 | 0 | Comforting | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Convenience | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Easy to use | 3 | 0 | 7 | 0 | |||||
| Usefulness | 3 | 0 | 28 | 8 | Adds knowledge | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Help diagnosis | 0 | 0 | 7 | 2 | |||||
| Helpful for communication | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | |||||
| Helpful for inexperienced clinicians | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| Helpful for work | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | |||||
| Important information prominent to user | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |||||
| Improves assessment | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |||||
| Improves patient management | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Leads to increased demand for services | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Reduces paperwork | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Useful | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |||||
| Useful in other contexts | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| User experience | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | Novelty of technology | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Practice and instruction | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||
| Good user experience | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Preference compared to current method | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Word of mouth positive | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
| Would use again | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||||
| Total themes identified | 5 | 4 | 10 | 6 | Total codes identified | 15 | 7 | 97 | 29 |
| Themes missed | 5 | 6 | 0 | 4 | Codes missed | 30 | 35 | 5 | 24 |
| Proportion identified (n = 8) | 50% | 40% | 100% | 60% | Proportion identified (n = 40) | 25% | 13% | 88% | 40% |
Q: questionnaire; U: user testing; I: interview; H: heuristic evaluation studies.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
