Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Feb;29(2):325-333.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02329-z. Epub 2019 Oct 18.

Key methodological considerations for usability testing of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems

Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi  1
Affiliations
Review

Key methodological considerations for usability testing of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems

Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi. Qual Life Res. 2020 Feb.

Abstract

Introduction: Recent advances in information technology and improved access to the internet have led to a rapid increase in the adoption and ownership of electronic devices such as touch screen smartphones and tablet computers. This has also led to a renewed interest in the field of digital health also referred to as telehealth or electronic health (eHealth). There is now a drive to collect these PROs electronically using ePRO systems.

Method: However, the user interfaces of ePRO systems need to be adequately assessed to ensure they are not only fit for purpose but also acceptable to patients who are the end users. Usability testing is a technique that involves the testing of systems, products or websites with participants drawn from the target population. Usability testing can assist ePRO developers in the evaluation of ePRO user interface. The complexity of ePRO systems; stage of development; metrics to measure; and the use of scenarios, moderators and appropriate sample sizes are key methodological issues to consider when planning usability tests.

Conclusion: The findings from usability testing may facilitate the improvement of ePRO systems making them more usable and acceptable to end users. This may in turn improve the adoption of ePRO systems post-implementation. This article highlights the key methodological issues to consider and address when planning usability testing of ePRO systems.

Keywords: Digital health; Electronic patient-reported outcomes; Electronic systems; PROs; Telehealth; Usability testing; eHealth; ePRO systems; ePROM; ePROs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Relationship between the stages of system development and applicable methods
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Sample size for usability cycles. Reproduced with the kind permission of the Nielsen Norman Group [53]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Perrin A. 10 facts about smartphones as the iPhone turns 10: Pew Research Center; 2017. Retrieved from October 2018 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/28/10-facts-about-smartphones/.
    1. Hong YA, Cho J. Has the digital health divide widened? Trends of health-related internet use among older adults from 2003 to 2011. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B. 2017;72(5):856–863. - PubMed
    1. FDA. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medicinal product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration; 2009.
    1. Kyte D, Bishop J, Brettell E, Calvert M, Cockwell P, Dutton M, et al. Use of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure in the management of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: The RePROM pilot trial protocol. British Medical Journal Open. 2018;8(10):e026080. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Basch E, Geoghegan C, Coons SJ, Gnanasakthy A, Slagle AF, Papadopoulos EJ, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer drug development and US regulatory review: Perspectives from industry, the food and drug administration, and the patient. JAMA Oncology. 2015;1(3):375–379. - PubMed

Grants and funding