Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- Usability (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (1)
- Universitätsbibliothek (1)
Der vorliegende Artikel beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, welche Methoden genutzt werden können, um eine Evaluierung von Services und Angeboten von Fachinformationsdiensten nutzer*innenzentriert und interaktiv umzusetzen. Als Beispiel dient der Fachinformationsdienst Darstellende Kunst, bereitgestellt von der Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg in Frankfurt am Main. Drei unterschiedliche Methoden werden in diesem Zusammenhang näher vorgestellt und ihre Anwendbarkeit für die Evaluierung von FID-Portalen oder vergleichbaren Rechercheportalen reflektiert: Leitfaden-Interviews mit Think-Aloud-Elementen, virtuelle Fokusgruppen sowie ein digitaler Card-Sorting-Ansatz.
Background: Rare Diseases (RDs) are difficult to diagnose. Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) could support the diagnosis for RDs. The Medical Informatics in Research and Medicine (MIRACUM) consortium developed a CDSS for RDs based on distributed clinical data from eight German university hospitals. To support the diagnosis for difficult patient cases, the CDSS uses data from the different hospitals to perform a patient similarity analysis to obtain an indication of a diagnosis. To optimize our CDSS, we conducted a qualitative study to investigate usability and functionality of our designed CDSS. Methods: We performed a Thinking Aloud Test (TA-Test) with RDs experts working in Rare Diseases Centers (RDCs) at MIRACUM locations which are specialized in diagnosis and treatment of RDs. An instruction sheet with tasks was prepared that the participants should perform with the CDSS during the study. The TA-Test was recorded on audio and video, whereas the resulting transcripts were analysed with a qualitative content analysis, as a ruled-guided fixed procedure to analyse text-based data. Furthermore, a questionnaire was handed out at the end of the study including the System Usability Scale (SUS). Results: A total of eight experts from eight MIRACUM locations with an established RDC were included in the study. Results indicate that more detailed information about patients, such as descriptive attributes or findings, can help the system perform better. The system was rated positively in terms of functionality, such as functions that enable the user to obtain an overview of similar patients or medical history of a patient. However, there is a lack of transparency in the results of the CDSS patient similarity analysis. The study participants often stated that the system should present the user with an overview of exact symptoms, diagnosis, and other characteristics that define two patients as similar. In the usability section, the CDSS received a score of 73.21 points, which is ranked as good usability. Conclusions: This qualitative study investigated the usability and functionality of a CDSS of RDs. Despite positive feedback about functionality of system, the CDSS still requires some revisions and improvement in transparency of the patient similarity analysis.
The study of what makes utterances difficult or easy to understand is one of the central topics of research in comprehension. It is both theoretically attractive and useful in practice. The more we know about difficulties in understanding the more we know about understanding. And the better we grasp typical problems of understanding in certain types of discourse and for certain recipients the better we can overcome these problems and the better we can advise people whose job it is to overcome such problems. It is therefore not surprising that comprehensibility has been the object of much reflection as far back as the days of classical rhetoric and that it is a center of lively interest in several present-day scientific disciplines, ranging from artificial intelligence and educational psychology to linguistics.