CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityTechnology Use by Older AdultsUsability and User Interface Design

User Experiences of the McMaster Optimal Aging Portal’s Evidence Summaries and Blog Posts: Usability Study

Open access
M Barbara, Angela, Dobbins, Maureen, Haynes, R Brian, Iorio, Alfonso, Lavis, John N, Levinson, Anthony J·2016·JMIR Human Factors
DOI 10.2196/humanfactors.6208PMC PMC5010647
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence summaries and blogs can support evidence-informed healthy aging, by presenting high-quality health research evidence in plain language for a nonprofessional (citizen) audience. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to explore citizens' perceptions about the usability of evidence summaries and blog posts on the Web-based McMaster Optimal Aging Portal. METHODS: Twenty-two citizens (aged 50 years and older) and informal caregivers participated in a qualitative study using a think-aloud method and semistructured interviews. Eleven interviews were conducted in person, 7 over the telephone, and 4 by Skype. RESULTS: We identified themes that fell under 4 user-experience categories: (1) desirability: personal relevance, (2) understandability: language comprehension, grasping the message, dealing with uncertainty, (3) usability: volume of information, use of numbers, and (4) usefulness: intention to use, facility for sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Participants recognized that high-quality evidence on aging was valuable. Their intended use of the information was influenced by how much it applied to their own health circumstances or those of a loved one. Some specific formatting features that were preferred included consistent layout, content organized by subheadings, catchy titles, numerical information summarized in a table, and inclusion of a glossary.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/humanfactors.6208

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Barbara et al. (2016) found that perceived personal relevance that caregivers and aging citizens attributed to research summaries was a key determinant of their decision to select research summaries for further inspection.

    “For example, Barbara et al. (2016) found that the perceived personal relevance that caregivers and aging citizens attributed to research summaries was a key determinant of their decision to select research summaries for further inspection in a usability study on their Optimal Aging Portal.”

    From A Randomized Controlled Study on the Effectiveness of Plain Language Summaries of Psychological Meta-Analyses (2025) · cites this paper as Barbara et al. (2016)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. [1]Charles C Gafni A Whelan T Decision-making in the physician–patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model Social Science & Medicine 1999 49 651 661 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00145-8 10452420 · DOI
  2. [3]Miller LMS Bell RA Online health information seeking: the influence of age, information trustworthiness, and search challenges J Aging Health 2012 24 525 541 10.1177/0898264311428167 22187092 0898264311428167 22187092 · DOI
  3. [5]Taha J Sharit J Czaja S Use of and satisfaction with sources of health information among older Internet users and nonusers Gerontologist 2009 49 663 673 10.1093/geront/gnp058 19741112 gnp058 19741112 PMC6282688 · DOI
  4. [6]Silver MP Patient perspectives on online health information and communication with doctors: a qualitative study of patients 50 years old and over J Med Internet Res 2015 17 e19 10.2196/jmir.3588 25586865 v17i1e19 25586865 PMC4319073 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [7]Washington KT Meadows SE Elliott SG Koopman RJ Information needs of informal caregivers of older adults with chronic health conditions Patient Educ Couns 2011 83 37 44 10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.017 20452165 S0738-3991(10)00187-4 20452165 · DOI
  6. [8]Ow D Wetherell D Papa N Bolton D Lawrentschuk N Patients' perspectives of accessibility and digital delivery of factual content provided by official medical and surgical specialty society websites: a qualitative assessment Interact J Med Res 2015 4 e7 10.2196/ijmr.3963 25830824 v4i1e7 25830824 PMC4393504 · DOI
  7. [9]Fahy E Hardikar R Fox A Mackay S Quality of patient health information on the Internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape Australas Med J 2014 7 24 28 10.4066/AMJ.2014.1900 24567763 20141900 24567763 PMC3920473 · DOI
  8. [11]Barbara AM Dobbins M Haynes RB Iorio A Lavis JN Raina P Levinson AJ The McMaster Optimal Aging Portal: usability evaluation of a unique evidence-based health information website JMIR Hum Factors 2016 3 e14 10.2196/humanfactors.4800 27170443 v3i1e14 27170443 PMC4880743 · DOI
  9. [12]Boström A Slaughter SE Chojecki D Estabrooks CA What do we know about knowledge translation in the care of older adults? A scoping review J Am Med Dir Assoc 2012 13 210 219 10.1016/j.jamda.2010.12.004 21450230 S1525-8610(10)00400-7 21450230 · DOI
  10. [14]LeRouge C Van SC Seale D Wright K Baby boomers' adoption of consumer health technologies: survey on readiness and barriers J Med Internet Res 2014 16 e200 10.2196/jmir.3049 25199475 v16i9e200 25199475 PMC4180340 · DOI
  11. [16]Lee C Gray SW Lewis N Internet use leads cancer patients to be active health care consumers Patient Educ Couns 2010 Suppl S63 S69 10.1016/j.pec.2010.09.004 20889279 S0738-3991(10)00552-5 PMC4209608 20889279 · DOI
  12. [17]Trevena LJ Davey HM Barratt A Butow P Caldwell P A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13 23 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00596.x 16422776 JEP596 16422776 · DOI
  13. [18]Haynes RB Holland J Cotoi C McKinlay RJ Wilczynski NL Walters LA Jedras D Parrish R McKibbon KA Garg A Walter SD McMaster PLUS: a cluster randomized clinical trial of an intervention to accelerate clinical use of evidence-based information from digital libraries J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006 13 593 600 10.1197/jamia.M2158 16929034 M2158 16929034 PMC1656957 · DOI
  14. [19]Holland J Haynes R McMaster Premium Literature Service (PLUS): an evidence-based medicine information service delivered on the Web 2005 AMIA Annual Symposium October 22-25, 2005 Washington, DC AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings 340 344 PMC1560593 16779058
  15. [20]Dobbins M DeCorby K Robeson P Husson H Tirilis D Greco L A knowledge management tool for public health: health-evidence.ca BMC Public Health 2010 10 496 10.1186/1471-2458-10-496 20718970 1471-2458-10-496 20718970 PMC2936422 · DOI
  16. [21]Moat KA Lavis JN 10 best resources for... evidence-informed health policy making Health Policy Plan 2013 28 215 218 10.1093/heapol/czs050 22717501 czs050 22717501 · DOI
  17. [22]Lavis JN Wilson MG Moat KA Hammill AC Boyko JA Grimshaw JM Flottorp S Developing and refining the methods for a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems Health Res Policy Syst 2015 13 10 10.1186/1478-4505-13-10 25971248 10.1186/1478-4505-13-10 25971248 PMC4429608 · DOI
  18. [25]Rosenbaum S Improving the User Experience of Evidence: A Design Approach to Evidence-Informed Health Care (PhD dissertation) 2010 Oslo, Norway The Oslo School of Architecture and Design
  19. [26]Ritchie J Lewish J Qualitative Research Practice 2003 London UK SAGE Publications Ltd
  20. [28]Glenton C Nilsen ES Carlsen B Lay perceptions of evidence-based information--a qualitative evaluation of a website for back pain sufferers BMC Health Serv Res 2006 34 10.1186/1472-6963-6-34 16539697 1472-6963-6-34 16539697 PMC1459152 · DOI
  21. [29]Glenton C Santesso N Rosenbaum S Nilsen ES Rader T Ciapponi A Dilkes H Presenting the results of Cochrane Systematic Reviews to a consumer audience: a qualitative study Med Decis Making 2010 30 566 577 10.1177/0272989X10375853 20643912 0272989X10375853 20643912 · DOI
  22. [30]Santesso N Rader T Nilsen ES Glenton C Rosenbaum S Ciapponi A Moja L Pardo JP Zhou Q Schünemann HJ A summary to communicate evidence from systematic reviews to the public improved understanding and accessibility of information: a randomized controlled trial J Clin Epidemiol 2015 68 182 190 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.009 25034199 S0895-4356(14)00213-3 25034199 · DOI
  23. [31]Colombo C Filippini G Synnot A Hill S Guglielmino R Traversa S Confalonieri P Mosconi P Tramacere I Development and assessment of a website presenting evidence-based information for people with multiple sclerosis: the IN-DEEP project BMC Neurol 2016 16 30 10.1186/s12883-016-0552-0 26934873 10.1186/s12883-016-0552-0 26934873 PMC4776365 · DOI
  24. [32]Synnot AJ Hill SJ Garner KA Summers MP Filippini G Osborne RH Shapland SDP Colombo C Mosconi P Online health information seeking: how people with multiple sclerosis find, assess and integrate treatment information to manage their health Health Expect 2016 19 727 737 10.1111/hex.12253 25165024 25165024 PMC5055229 · DOI
  25. [33]Kurtzman ET Greene J Effective presentation of health care performance information for consumer decision making: A systematic review Patient Educ Couns 2016 99 36 43 10.1016/j.pec.2015.07.030 26277826 S0738-3991(15)30037-9 26277826 · DOI
  26. [36]Broom A Virtually he@lthy: the impact of internet use on disease experience and the doctor-patient relationship Qual Health Res 2005 15 325 345 10.1177/1049732304272916 15761103 15/3/325 15761103 · DOI
  27. [37]Brehaut JC Santesso N O'Connor AM Lott A Lindgaard G Syrowatka A Graham ID Tugwell PS Presenting evidence to patients online: what do web users think of consumer summaries of cochrane musculoskeletal reviews? J Med Internet Res 2011 13 e5 10.2196/jmir.1532 21247863 v13i1e5 21247863 PMC3221355 · DOI
  28. [38]Chen Y Yang K Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of evidence The Lancet 2009 374 786 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61591-9 19733780 · DOI
  29. [39]Longo D Schubert S Williams C Clore J Health information seeking and use in diabetes self-management Ann Fam Med 2010 8 334 340 10.1370/afm.1115.Department 20644188 PMC2906528 · DOI
  30. [40]Nutbeam D Health promotion glossary Health Promot 1986 1 113 127 10318625 10318625

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
M Barbara, A., Dobbins, M., Haynes, R. B., Iorio, A., Lavis, J. N., & Levinson, A. J.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Levinson, Anthony J
ORCID
Venue
JMIR Human Factors
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2016-08-19
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
e22
ISSN
2292-9495 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/humanfactors.6208
PMC
PMC5010647
OpenAlex
W2511432537
Cited by
12
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Human Factors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
evidence summaries, health blogs, healthy aging, older adults, informal caregivers, usability, user experience, desirability, comprehensibility, usefulness, information sharing

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