Usability Evaluation of an Offline Electronic Data Capture App in a Prospective Multicenter Dementia Registry (digiDEM Bayern): Mixed Method Study

Background Digital registries have been shown to provide an efficient way of gaining a better understanding of the clinical complexity and long-term progression of diseases. The paperless method of electronic data capture (EDC) during a patient interview saves both time and resources. In the prospective multicenter project “Digital Dementia Registry Bavaria (digiDEM Bayern),” interviews are also performed on site in rural areas with unreliable internet connectivity. It must be ensured that EDC can still be performed in such a context and that there is no need to fall back on paper-based questionnaires. In addition to a web-based data collection solution, the EDC system REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) offers the option to collect data offline via an app and to synchronize it afterward. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the usability of the REDCap app as an offline EDC option for a lay user group and to examine the necessary technology acceptance of using mobile devices for data collection. The feasibility of the app-based offline data collection in the digiDEM Bayern dementia registry project was then evaluated before going live. Methods An exploratory mixed method design was employed in the form of an on-site usability test with the “Thinking Aloud” method combined with an online questionnaire including the System Usability Scale (SUS). The acceptance of mobile devices for data collection was surveyed based on five categories of the technology acceptance model. Results Using the “Thinking Aloud” method, usability issues were identified and solutions were accordingly derived. Evaluation of the REDCap app resulted in a SUS score of 74, which represents “good” usability. After evaluating the technology acceptance questionnaire, it can be concluded that the lay user group is open to mobile devices as interview tools. Conclusions The usability evaluation results show that a lay user group generally agree that data collecting partners in the digiDEM project can handle the REDCap app well. The usability evaluation provided statements about positive aspects and could also identify usability issues relating to the REDCap app. In addition, the current technology acceptance in the sample showed that heterogeneous groups of different ages with diverse experiences in handling mobile devices are also ready for the use of app-based EDC systems. Based on these results, it can be assumed that the offline use of an app-based EDC system on mobile devices is a viable solution for collecting data in a decentralized registry–based research project.

[1]  Marcella Nunez-Smith,et al.  Mixed Methods in Health Sciences Research: A Practical Primer , 2014 .

[2]  Bernadette Szajna,et al.  Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model , 1996 .

[3]  Ingrid K. Weigold,et al.  Computerized Device Equivalence: A Comparison of Surveys Completed Using A Smartphone, Tablet, Desktop Computer, and Paper-and-Pencil , 2020, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[4]  Thomas S. Tullis,et al.  A Comparison of Questionnaires for Assessing Website Usability , 2004 .

[5]  Inocencio Maramba,et al.  Methods of usability testing in the development of eHealth applications: A scoping review , 2019, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[6]  Brigitte Walther,et al.  Comparison of Electronic Data Capture (EDC) with the Standard Data Capture Method for Clinical Trial Data , 2011, PloS one.

[7]  Daniel Hind,et al.  Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme , 2017, BMJ Open.

[8]  Beverly J Meadows,et al.  Eliciting Remote Data Entry System Requirements for the Collection of Cancer Clinical Trial Data , 2003, Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN.

[9]  Katja Mruck,et al.  Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie , 2020, Springer Reference Psychologie.

[10]  J. Morris,et al.  Trajectory of Mobility Decline by Type of Dementia , 2016, Alzheimer disease and associated disorders.

[11]  Kimberly A Barchard,et al.  Comparing the accuracy and speed of four data-checking methods , 2019, Behavior Research Methods.

[12]  Johnny Saldaña,et al.  The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers , 2009 .

[13]  James R. Lewis,et al.  The System Usability Scale: Past, Present, and Future , 2018, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[14]  Jake Cobb,et al.  REDLetr: Workflow and tools to support the migration of legacy clinical data capture systems to REDCap , 2016, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[15]  Karl-Heinz Rödiger Anwendungsbereiche lernen voneinander...und woraus lernen wir? , 1995, Software-Ergonomie.

[16]  Jon Nicholl,et al.  A reinvestigation of recruitment to randomised, controlled, multicenter trials: a review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies , 2013, Trials.

[17]  H. Prokosch,et al.  Digital Dementia Registry Bavaria—digiDEM Bayern: study protocol for a multicentre, prospective, longitudinal register study , 2021, BMJ Open.

[18]  P. Harris,et al.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[19]  Raafat George Saadé,et al.  The Emotional State of Technology Acceptance , 2006 .

[20]  Richard J. Holden,et al.  The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care , 2010, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[21]  Nikki G. Lobczowski,et al.  Using cognitive interviews and think-aloud protocols to understand thought processes. , 2020, Currents in pharmacy teaching & learning.

[22]  Paul A. Harris,et al.  The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners , 2019, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[23]  Zoonky Lee,et al.  Social influence on technology acceptance behavior: self-identity theory perspective , 2006, DATB.

[24]  A. Thind,et al.  Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review , 2020, JMIR perioperative medicine.

[25]  E. Etchells,et al.  Human factors in action: getting "pumped" at a nursing usability laboratory. , 2006, Healthcare quarterly.

[26]  Gerald van Belle,et al.  Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD): The first twenty years , 2008, Alzheimer's & Dementia.

[27]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[28]  H. Prokosch,et al.  Designing and Implementing an IT Architecture for a Digital Multicenter Dementia Registry: digiDEM Bayern , 2021, Applied Clinical Informatics.

[29]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[30]  Nancy L. Leech,et al.  A typology of mixed methods research designs , 2009 .

[31]  Jochen Prümper Fehlerbeurteilungen in der Mensch-Computer-Interaktion: Reliabilitätsanalysen und Training einer handlungstheoretischen Fehlertaxonomie , 1994 .

[32]  David W. Eccles,et al.  The think aloud method: what is it and how do I use it? , 2017 .

[33]  Mick P. Couper,et al.  Why Do Web Surveys Take Longer on Smartphones? , 2017 .

[34]  G. Selbæk,et al.  Do behavioral disturbances predict falls among nursing home residents? , 2012, Aging Clinical and Experimental Research.

[35]  Tom Page,et al.  Touchscreen mobile devices and older adults: a usability study , 2014 .

[36]  Natalia Juristo Juzgado,et al.  Analysing the impact of usability on software design , 2007, J. Syst. Softw..

[37]  Jing Gao,et al.  Overcoming the language barrier in mobile user interface design: A case study on a mobile health app , 2016, ArXiv.

[38]  Stephanie Burnett,et al.  Benefits and challenges of electronic data capture (EDC) systems versus paper case report forms , 2015, Trials.

[39]  Jeff Sauro,et al.  The Factor Structure of the System Usability Scale , 2009, HCI.

[40]  Y. Qiu,et al.  Nursing Information Systems , 2007, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[41]  H. Noble,et al.  Triangulation in research, with examples , 2019, Evidence Based Journals.

[42]  James E Lingeman,et al.  Internet based multi-institutional clinical research: a convenient and secure option. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[43]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[44]  A. Kraft,et al.  Mobile electronic versus paper case report forms in clinical trials: a randomized controlled trial , 2017, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[45]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[46]  Ted Boren,et al.  Thinking aloud: reconciling theory and practice , 2000 .

[47]  Kendra Vehik,et al.  Patient registries: utility, validity and inference. , 2010, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.

[48]  James T. Miller,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[49]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Number of people required for usability evaluation , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[50]  Toomas Timpka,et al.  A Systematic Review of the Technology Acceptance Model in Health Informatics , 2018, Applied Clinical Informatics.

[51]  Janni Nielsen,et al.  Getting access to what goes on in people's heads?: reflections on the think-aloud technique , 2002, NordiCHI '02.

[52]  L. Faulkner Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[53]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems , 1993, INTERCHI.

[54]  Judith Schoonenboom,et al.  How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design , 2017, KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie.

[55]  Frode Guribye,et al.  Usability Evaluations of Mobile Mental Health Technologies: Systematic Review , 2020, Journal of medical Internet research.

[56]  Rajiv Kohli,et al.  Performance Impacts of Information Technology: Is Actual Usage the Missing Link? , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[57]  James A Welker,et al.  Implementation of electronic data capture systems: barriers and solutions. , 2007, Contemporary clinical trials.

[58]  Anita Walden,et al.  User-centered design principles in the development of clinical research tools , 2020, Clinical trials.

[59]  Nathaniel P. Katz,et al.  Comparative study of electronic vs. paper VAS ratings: a randomized, crossover trial using healthy volunteers , 2002, PAIN.

[60]  Aygül Dönmez-Turan,et al.  User anxiety as an external variable of technology acceptance model: A meta-analytic study , 2019, Procedia Computer Science.

[61]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology , 2012, MIS Q..

[62]  Nancy A. Dreyer,et al.  21st Century Patient Registries, Ebook Addendum to Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User's Guide, 3rd Edition , 2018 .

[63]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[64]  G. Eysenbach The Law of Attrition , 2005, Journal of medical Internet research.

[65]  David Wicks,et al.  The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd edition) , 2017 .

[66]  Frederick L. Oswald,et al.  Multi-Language Toolkit for the System Usability Scale , 2020, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[67]  Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi,et al.  Key methodological considerations for usability testing of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems , 2019, Quality of Life Research.

[68]  J. Paul,et al.  The Internet and Clinical Trials: Background, Online Resources, Examples and Issues , 2005, Journal of medical Internet research.

[69]  Azham Hussain,et al.  A Systematic Review of Usability Challenges and Testing in Mobile Health , 2015 .

[70]  Andreas Sonderegger,et al.  The influence of age in usability testing. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[71]  Sidney Fels,et al.  A framework for evaluating usability of clinical monitoring technology , 2007, Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing.

[72]  A Hoerbst,et al.  A Systematic Investigation on Barriers and Critical Success Factors for Clinical Information Systems in Integrated Care Settings , 2015, Yearbook of Medical Informatics.

[73]  E. Ammenwerth Technology Acceptance Models in Health Informatics: TAM and UTAUT. , 2019, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[74]  Lucy Dillon,et al.  Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. A quality framework. , 2003 .

[75]  Peter J Watkinson,et al.  Systematic review of applied usability metrics within usability evaluation methods for hospital electronic healthcare record systems , 2021, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[76]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[77]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review , 2010, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[78]  M. Sandelowski Sample size in qualitative research. , 1995, Research in nursing & health.

[79]  Cristina Gena,et al.  Methods and techniques for the evaluation of user-adaptive systems , 2005, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[80]  Scott McIntosh,et al.  Development and Implementation of Culturally Tailored Offline Mobile Health Surveys , 2016, JMIR public health and surveillance.

[81]  M. Chi Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide , 1997 .

[82]  Michael T Halpern,et al.  Practical applications of usability theory to electronic data collection for clinical trials. , 2005, Contemporary clinical trials.

[83]  Maarten van Someren,et al.  The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes , 1994 .

[84]  James R. Lewis,et al.  IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[85]  M. Zozus,et al.  Beyond EDC , 2022, Journal of the Society for Clinical Data Management.

[86]  J. Nielsen Usability inspection methods , 1994, CHI Conference Companion.

[87]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[88]  Jacques Nantel,et al.  The impact of language and culture on perceived website usability , 2008 .

[89]  Udo Kuckartz Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung , 2016 .

[90]  Pascale Carayon,et al.  A systematic review of mixed methods research on human factors and ergonomics in health care. , 2015, Applied ergonomics.

[91]  Lex Stefan van Velsen,et al.  Assessing usability of eHealth technology: A comparison of usability benchmarking instruments , 2019, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[92]  S. Elo,et al.  Qualitative Content Analysis , 2014 .

[93]  Monique W. M. Jaspers,et al.  A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: Methodological aspects and empirical evidence , 2009, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[94]  Pedro Vinícius Staziaki,et al.  Medical Registry Data Collection Efficiency: A Crossover Study Comparing Web-Based Electronic Data Capture and a Standard Spreadsheet , 2016, Journal of medical Internet research.

[95]  Philipp Mayring Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse , 2019, Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie.