14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      An 11-Item Measure of User- and Human-Centered Design for Personal Health Tools (UCD-11): Development and Validation

      research-article
      , PhD 1 , 2 , 3 , , , MSc 1 , 3 , , BA 1 , , PhD 1 , , PhD, OT Reg (Ont) 4 , , MSc 1 , 2 , , PhD 5 , 6 , , PhD 1 , 2 , , BSCN, MEd, NP-PHC 7 , , PhD 8 , , MD, PhD 4 , 9 , , MD, PhD 1 , 2 , , MSc 1 , 3 , , RN, PhD 10 , 11 , , PhD 8 , , PhD 1 , 2
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      Journal of Medical Internet Research
      JMIR Publications
      patient-centered care, patient participation, health services research, validation studies as topic, surveys and questionnaires, humans, user-centred design, human-centred design, user-centered design, human-centered design, co-design, instrument, scale, index, patient and public involvement

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Researchers developing personal health tools employ a range of approaches to involve prospective users in design and development.

          Objective

          The aim of this paper was to develop a validated measure of the human- or user-centeredness of design and development processes for personal health tools.

          Methods

          We conducted a psychometric analysis of data from a previous systematic review of the design and development processes of 348 personal health tools. Using a conceptual framework of user-centered design, our team of patients, caregivers, health professionals, tool developers, and researchers analyzed how specific practices in tool design and development might be combined and used as a measure. We prioritized variables according to their importance within the conceptual framework and validated the resultant measure using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation, classical item analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis.

          Results

          We retained 11 items in a 3-factor structure explaining 68% of the variance in the data. The Cronbach alpha was .72. Confirmatory factor analysis supported our hypothesis of a latent construct of user-centeredness. Items were whether or not: (1) patient, family, caregiver, or surrogate users were involved in the steps that help tool developers understand users or (2) develop a prototype, (3) asked their opinions, (4) observed using the tool or (5) involved in steps intended to evaluate the tool, (6) the process had 3 or more iterative cycles, (7) changes between cycles were explicitly reported, (8) health professionals were asked their opinion and (9) consulted before the first prototype was developed or (10) between initial and final prototypes, and (11) a panel of other experts was involved.

          Conclusions

          The User-Centered Design 11-item measure (UCD-11) may be used to quantitatively document the user/human-centeredness of design and development processes of patient-centered tools. By building an evidence base about such processes, we can help ensure that tools are adapted to people who will use them, rather than requiring people to adapt to tools.

          Related collections

          Most cited references66

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)

          Purpose This article introduces the new 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) health status measure. Methods EQ-5D currently measures health using three levels of severity in five dimensions. A EuroQol Group task force was established to find ways of improving the instrument’s sensitivity and reducing ceiling effects by increasing the number of severity levels. The study was performed in the United Kingdom and Spain. Severity labels for 5 levels in each dimension were identified using response scaling. Focus groups were used to investigate the face and content validity of the new versions, including hypothetical health states generated from those versions. Results Selecting labels at approximately the 25th, 50th, and 75th centiles produced two alternative 5-level versions. Focus group work showed a slight preference for the wording ‘slight-moderate-severe’ problems, with anchors of ‘no problems’ and ‘unable to do’ in the EQ-5D functional dimensions. Similar wording was used in the Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression dimensions. Hypothetical health states were well understood though participants stressed the need for the internal coherence of health states. Conclusions A 5-level version of the EQ-5D has been developed by the EuroQol Group. Further testing is required to determine whether the new version improves sensitivity and reduces ceiling effects.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Psychometric Theory.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              An index of factorial simplicity

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J Med Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                March 2021
                16 March 2021
                : 23
                : 3
                : e15032
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Université Laval Quebec City, QC Canada
                [2 ] VITAM Research Centre for Sustainable Health Quebec City, QC Canada
                [3 ] CHU de Québec-Université Laval Quebec City, QC Canada
                [4 ] University of Toronto Toronto, ON Canada
                [5 ] University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT United States
                [6 ] Salt Lake City VA Center for Informatics Decision Enhancement and Surveillance Salt Lake City, UT United States
                [7 ] East End Community Health Centre Toronto, ON Canada
                [8 ] The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX United States
                [9 ] Women’s College Hospital Toronto, ON Canada
                [10 ] University of Ottawa Ottawa, ON Canada
                [11 ] Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ottawa, ON Canada
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Holly O Witteman holly.witteman@ 123456fmed.ulaval.ca
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4192-0682
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2795-6083
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2182-7835
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1979-5395
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6226-2511
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5112-6231
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9192-2777
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9928-7395
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1238-7084
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4803-8668
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2500-2435
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2296-6696
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8188-9547
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2681-741X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8811-5854
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2816-0773
                Article
                v23i3e15032
                10.2196/15032
                8074832
                33724194
                bd43b79f-ca25-448b-b39b-51e491e47ebf
                ©Holly O Witteman, Gratianne Vaisson, Thierry Provencher, Selma Chipenda Dansokho, Heather Colquhoun, Michele Dugas, Angela Fagerlin, Anik MC Giguere, Lynne Haslett, Aubri Hoffman, Noah M Ivers, France Légaré, Marie-Eve Trottier, Dawn Stacey, Robert J Volk, Jean-Sébastien Renaud. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 16.03.2021.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 13 June 2019
                : 3 October 2019
                : 27 August 2020
                : 3 October 2020
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                Medicine
                patient-centered care,patient participation,health services research,validation studies as topic,surveys and questionnaires,humans,user-centred design, human-centred design,user-centered design,human-centered design,co-design,instrument,scale,index,patient and public involvement

                Comments

                Comment on this article