CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityUsability and User Interface DesignDigital Accessibility for Disabilities

Online usability and patients with long-term conditions: A mixed-methods approach

Ossebaard, Hans C., Seydel, Erwin R., van Gemert-Pijnen, Lisette·2012·International Journal of Medical Informatics
DOI 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.12.010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background To improve the information position of health care consumers and to facilitate decision-making behavior in health the Dutch ministry of Health commissioned the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment to develop, host and manage a public national health and care portal (www.kiesbeter.nl) on the Internet. The portal is used by over 4 million visitors in 2010. Among them, an increasing amount of patients that use the portal for information and decision making on medical issues, healthy living, health care providers and other topics.Objective First objective is to examine what usability aspects of the portal kiesBeter.nl matter for chronic patients and their informal carers with regard to information seeking, self-management, decision making, on line health information and other variables. Second objective is to make evidence-based practical recommendations for usability improvement.Methods An innovative combination of techniques (semi-structured interviews; eHealth Literacy scale; scenario-based study using think-aloud protocol and screen capture software; focus group) is used to study usability and on line information seeking behavior in a non random judgment sample of three groups of patients (N=21) with long-term medical conditions (arthritis, asthma and diabetes).Results The search strategy mostly used (65%) by the relatively well-educated subjects is 'orienteering'. Users with long-term conditions and their carers expect tailored support from a national health portal, to help them navigate, search and find the detailed information they need. They encounter serious problems with these usability issues some of which are disease-specific. Patients indicate a need for personalized information. They report low impact on self-management and decision making. Overall judgment of usability is rated 7 on a Likert type 0-10 scale. Based on the outcomes recommendations could be formulated. These have led to major adaptations to improve usability.Limitations A non-representative composition of a small non random judgment sample does not permit generalization to other populations and cognitive bias cannot be quantified. However if mixed methods are applied valid conclusions can be drawn with regard to usability issues.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.12.010

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Multiple authors in the included studies stated that ideally, multiple methods should be combined to paint a full picture of a prototype's usability.

    “Second, authors stated that ideally, multiple methods should be combined to paint a full picture of a prototype’s usability”

    From Methods for Human-Centered eHealth Development: Narrative Scoping Review (2022) · cites this paper as [24]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ossebaard, H. C., Seydel, E. R., & van Gemert-Pijnen, L.
Affiliations
  • National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (NL)
  • University of Twente (NL)
Corresponding author
Ossebaard, Hans C.
ORCID
Ossebaard, Hans C.
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-06
Volume
81
Issue
6
Pages
374-387
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.12.010
OpenAlex
W2111288239
Cited by
43
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
9.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
  • Rivm Repository (Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
Keywords
chronic disease, chronic disease patients, informal caregivers, online health information seeking, self-management, health decision-making, digital health literacy, personalized health information, arthritis, asthma, diabetes mellitus, usability improvement recommendations
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Educational Status, Female, Health Education, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Patient Education as Topic, Prevalence, Internet, Data Mining

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review