Dataset Information

The iPrevent Online Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk Management Tool: Usability and Acceptability Testing.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:iPrevent estimates breast cancer (BC) risk and provides tailored risk management information. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to assess the usability and acceptability of the iPrevent prototype. METHODS:Clinicians were eligible for participation in the study if they worked in primary care, breast surgery, or genetics clinics. Female patients aged 18-70 years with no personal cancer history were eligible. Clinicians were first familiarized with iPrevent using hypothetical paper-based cases and then actor scenarios; subsequently, they used iPrevent with their patients. Clinicians and patients completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and an Acceptability questionnaire 2 weeks after using iPrevent; patients also completed measures of BC worry, anxiety, risk perception, and knowledge pre- and 2 weeks post-iPrevent. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS:The SUS and Acceptability questionnaires were completed by 19 of 20 clinicians and 37 of 43 patients. Usability was above average (SUS score >68) for 68% (13/19) clinicians and 76% (28/37) patients. The amount of information provided by iPrevent was reported as "about right" by 89% (17/19) clinicians and 89% (33/37) patients and 95% (18/19) and 97% (36/37), respectively, would recommend iPrevent to others, although 53% (10/19) clinicians and 27% (10/37) patients found it too long. Exploratory analyses suggested that iPrevent could improve risk perception, decrease frequency of BC worry, and enhance BC prevention knowledge without changing state anxiety. CONCLUSIONS:The iPrevent prototype demonstrated good usability and acceptability. Because concerns about length could be an implementation barrier, data entry has been abbreviated in the publicly available version of iPrevent.

SUBMITTER: Lo LL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6334700 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The iPrevent Online Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk Management Tool: Usability and Acceptability Testing.

Lo Louisa L LL Collins Ian M IM Bressel Mathias M Butow Phyllis P Emery Jon J Keogh Louise L Weideman Prue P Steel Emma E Hopper John L JL Trainer Alison H AH Mann Gregory B GB Bickerstaffe Adrian A Antoniou Antonis C AC Cuzick Jack J Phillips Kelly-Anne KA

JMIR formative research 20181107 2

<h4>Background</h4>iPrevent estimates breast cancer (BC) risk and provides tailored risk management information.<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study was to assess the usability and acceptability of the iPrevent prototype.<h4>Methods</h4>Clinicians were eligible for participation in the study if they worked in primary care, breast surgery, or genetics clinics. Female patients aged 18-70 years with no personal cancer history were eligible. Clinicians were first familiarized with iPrevent ...[more]

PMID: 30684421

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImproving cancer survival in the UK, despite recent significant gains, remains a huge challenge. This can be attributed to, at least in part, patient and diagnostic delays, when patients are unaware they are suffering from a cancerous symptom and therefore do not visit a general practitioner promptly and/or when general practitioners fail to investigate the symptom or refer promptly. To raise awareness of symptoms that may potentially be indicative of underlying cancer among members of the public a symptom-based risk assessment model (developed for medical practitioner use and currently only used by some UK general practitioners) was utilized to develop a risk assessment tool to be offered to the public in community settings. Such a tool could help individuals recognize a symptom, which may potentially indicate cancer, faster and reduce the time taken to visit to their general practitioner. In this paper we report results about the design and development of the REACT (Risk Estimation for Additional Cancer Testing) website, a tool to be used in a community setting allowing users to complete an online questionnaire and obtain personalized cancer symptom-based risk estimation.ObjectiveThe objectives of this study are to evaluate (1) the acceptability of REACT among the public and health care practitioners, (2) the usability of the REACT website, (3) the presentation of personalized cancer risk on the website, and (4) potential approaches to adopt REACT into community health care services in the UK.MethodsOur research consisted of multiple stages involving members of the public (n=39) and health care practitioners (n=20) in the UK. Data were collected between June 2017 and January 2018. User views were collected by (1) the "think-aloud" approach when participants using the website were asked to talk about their perceptions and feelings in relation to the website, and (2) self-reporting of website experiences through open-ended questionnaires. Data collection and data analysis continued simultaneously, allowing for website iterations between different points of data collection.ResultsThe results demonstrate the need for such a tool. Participants suggest the best way to offer REACT is through a guided approach, with a health care practitioner (eg, pharmacist or National Health Service Health Check nurse) present during the process of risk evaluation. User feedback, which was generally consistent across members of public and health care practitioners, has been used to inform the development of the website. The most important aspects were: simplicity, ability to evaluate multiple cancers, content emphasizing an inviting community "feel," use (when possible) of layperson language in the symptom screening questionnaire, and a robust and positive approach to cancer communication relying on visual risk representation both with affected individuals and the entire population at risk.ConclusionsThis study illustrates the benefits of involving public and stakeholders in developing and implementing a simple cancer symptom check tool within community. It also offers insights and design suggestions for user-friendly interfaces of similar health care Web-based services, especially those involving personalized risk estimation.

Project description:BackgroundThe lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer is significantly higher among women with genetic susceptibility or a strong family history. However, current risk assessment tools and clinical practices may identify only 10% of asymptomatic carriers of susceptibility genes. Bright Pink developed the Assess Your Risk (AYR) tool to estimate breast and ovarian cancer risk through a user-friendly, informative web-based quiz for risk assessment at the population level.ObjectiveThis study aims to present the AYR tool, describe AYR users, and present evidence that AYR works as expected by comparing classification using the AYR tool with gold standard genetic testing guidelines.MethodsThe AYR is a recently developed population-level risk assessment tool that includes 26 questions based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and factors from other commonly used risk assessment tools. We included all women who completed the AYR between November 2018 and January 2019, with the exception of self-reported cancer or no knowledge of family history. We compared AYR classifications with those that were independently created using NCCN criteria using measures of validity and the McNemar test.ResultsThere were 143,657 AYR completions, and most participants were either at increased or average risk for breast cancer or ovarian cancer (137,315/143,657, 95.59%). Using our estimates of increased and average risk as the gold standard, based on the NCCN guidelines, we estimated the sensitivity and specificity for the AYR algorithm-generated risk categories as 100% and 89.9%, respectively (P<.001). The specificity improved when we considered the additional questions asked by the AYR to define increased risk, which were not examined by the NCCN criteria. By race, ethnicity, and age group; we found that the lowest observed specificity was for the Asian race (85.9%) and the 30 to 39 years age group (87.6%) for the AYR-generated categories compared with the NCCN criteria.ConclusionsThese results demonstrate that Bright Pink's AYR is an accurate tool for use by the general population to identify women at increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. We plan to validate the tool longitudinally in future studies, including the impact of race, ethnicity, and age on breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment.

Project description:Background and aimsAccurate and user-friendly assessment tools quantifying alcohol consumption are a prerequisite to effective prevention and treatment programmes, including Screening and Brief Intervention. Digital tools offer new potential in this field. We developed the 'Animated Alcohol Assessment Tool' (AAA-Tool), a mobile app providing an interactive version of the World Health Organization's Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) that facilitates the description of individual alcohol consumption via culturally informed animation features. This pilot study evaluated the Russia-specific version of the Animated Alcohol Assessment Tool with regard to (1) its usability and acceptability in a primary healthcare setting, (2) the plausibility of its alcohol consumption assessment results and (3) the adequacy of its Russia-specific vessel and beverage selection.MethodsConvenience samples of 55 patients (47% female) and 15 healthcare practitioners (80% female) in 2 Russian primary healthcare facilities self-administered the Animated Alcohol Assessment Tool and rated their experience on the Mobile Application Rating Scale - User Version. Usage data was automatically collected during app usage, and additional feedback on regional content was elicited in semi-structured interviews.ResultsOn average, patients completed the Animated Alcohol Assessment Tool in 6:38 min (SD = 2.49, range = 3.00-17.16). User satisfaction was good, with all subscale Mobile Application Rating Scale - User Version scores averaging >3 out of 5 points. A majority of patients (53%) and practitioners (93%) would recommend the tool to 'many people' or 'everyone'. Assessed alcohol consumption was plausible, with a low number (14%) of logically impossible entries. Most patients reported the Animated Alcohol Assessment Tool to reflect all vessels (78%) and all beverages (71%) they typically used.ConclusionHigh acceptability ratings by patients and healthcare practitioners, acceptable completion time, plausible alcohol usage assessment results and perceived adequacy of region-specific content underline the Animated Alcohol Assessment Tool's potential to provide a novel approach to alcohol assessment in primary healthcare. After its validation, the Animated Alcohol Assessment Tool might contribute to reducing alcohol-related harm by facilitating Screening and Brief Intervention implementation in Russia and beyond.

Project description:BackgroundA Childhood Obesity Risk Estimation tool (SLOPE CORE) has been developed based on prediction models using routinely available maternity and early childhood data to estimate risk of childhood obesity at 4-5 years. This study aims to test the feasibility, acceptability and usability of SLOPE CORE within an enhanced health visiting (EHV) service in the UK, as one context in which this tool could be utilised.MethodsA mixed methods approach was used to assess feasibility of implementing SLOPE CORE. Health Visitors (HVs) were trained to use the tool, and in the processes for recruiting parents into the study. HVs were recruited using purposive sampling and parents by convenience sampling. HVs and parents were invited to take part in interviews or focus groups to explore their experiences of the tool. HVs were asked to complete a system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire.ResultsFive HVs and seven parents took part in the study. HVs found SLOPE CORE easy to use with a mean SUS of 84.4, (n = 4, range 70-97.5) indicating excellent usability. Five HVs and three parents took part in qualitative work. The tool was acceptable and useful for both parents and HVs. Parents expressed a desire to know their child's risk of future obesity, provided this was accompanied by additional information, or support to modify risk. HVs appreciated the health promotion opportunity that the tool presented and felt that it facilitated difficult conversations around weight, by providing 'clinical evidence' for risk, and placing the focus of the conversation onto the tool result, rather than their professional judgement. The main potential barriers to use of the tool included the need for internet access, and concerns around time needed to have a sensitive discussion around a conceptually difficult topic (risk).ConclusionsSLOPE CORE could potentially be useful in clinical practice. It may support targeting limited resources towards families most at risk of childhood obesity. Further research is needed to explore how the tool might be efficiently incorporated into practice, and to evaluate the impact of the tool, and any subsequent interventions, on preventing childhood obesity.

Project description:BackgroundThe internet is commonly used by older adults to obtain health information and this trend has markedly increased in the past decade. However, studies illustrate that much of the available online health information is not informed by good quality evidence, developed in a transparent way, or easy to use. Furthermore, studies highlight that the general public lacks the skills necessary to distinguish between online products that are credible and trustworthy and those that are not. A number of tools have been developed to assess the evidence, transparency, and usability of online health information; however, many have not been assessed for reliability or ease of use.ObjectiveThe first objective of this study was to determine if a tool assessing the evidence, transparency, and usability of online health information exists that is easy and quick to use and has good reliability. No such tool was identified, so the second objective was to develop such a tool and assess it for reliability when used to assess online health information on topics of relevant to optimal aging.MethodsAn electronic database search was conducted between 2002 and 2012 to identify published papers describing tools that assessed the evidence, transparency, and usability of online health information. Papers were retained if the tool described was assessed for reliability, assessed the quality of evidence used to create online health information, and was quick and easy to use. When no one tool met expectations, a new instrument was developed and tested for reliability. Reliability between two raters was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each item at two time points. SPSS Statistics 22 software was used for statistical analyses and a one-way random effects model was used to report the results. The overall ICC was assessed for the instrument as a whole in July 2015. The threshold for retaining items was ICC>0.60 (ie, "good" reliability).ResultsAll tools identified that evaluated online health information were either too complex, took a long time to complete, had poor reliability, or had not undergone reliability assessment. A new instrument was developed and assessed for reliability in April 2014. Three items had an ICC<0.60 (ie, "good" reliability). One of these items was removed ("minimal scrolling") and two were retained but reworded for clarity. Four new items were added that assessed the level of research evidence that informed the online health information and the tool was retested in July 2015. The total ICC score showed excellent agreement with both single measures (ICC=0.988; CI 0.982-0.992) and average measures (ICC=0.994; CI 0.991-0.996).ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that this new tool is reliable for assessing the evidence, transparency, and usability of online health information that is relevant to optimal aging.

Project description:BackgroundMusculoskeletal conditions account for 16% of global disability, resulting in a negative effect on millions of patients and an increasing burden on health care utilization. Digital technologies that improve health care outcomes and efficiency are considered a priority; however, innovations are often inadequately developed and poorly adopted. Further, they are rarely tested with sufficient rigor in clinical trials-the gold standard for clinical proof of efficacy. We have developed a new musculoskeletal Digital Assessment Routing Tool (DART) that allows users to self-assess and be directed to the right care. DART requires usability testing in preparation for clinical trials.ObjectiveThis study will use the iterative convergent mixed methods design to assess and mitigate all serious usability issues to optimize user experience and adoption. Using this methodology, we will provide justifiable confidence to progress to full-scale randomized controlled trials when DART is integrated into clinical management pathways. This study protocol will provide a blueprint for future usability studies of mobile health solutions.MethodsWe will collect qualitative and quantitative data from 20-30 participants aged 18 years and older for 4 months. The exact number of participants recruited will be dependent on the number of iterative cycles required to reach the study end points. Building on previous internal testing and stakeholder involvement, quantitative data collection is defined by the constructs within the ISO 9241-210-2019 standard and the system usability scale, providing a usability score for DART. Guided by the participant responses to quantitative questioning, the researcher will focus the qualitative data collection on specific usability problems. These will then be graded to provide the rationale for further DART system improvements throughout the iterative cycles.ResultsThis study received approval from the Queen Mary University of London Ethics of Research Committee (QMREC2018/48/048) on June 4, 2020. At manuscript submission, study recruitment was on-going, with data collection to be completed and results published in 2021.ConclusionsThis study will provide evidence concerning mobile health DART system usability and acceptance determining system improvements required to support user adoption and minimize suboptimal system usability as a potential confounder within subsequent noninferiority clinical trials. Success should produce a safe effective system with excellent usability, facilitating quicker and easier patient access to appropriate care while reducing the burden on primary and secondary care musculoskeletal services. This deliberately rigorous approach to mobile health innovation could be used as a guide for other developers of similar apps.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/27205.

Dataset Information

The iPrevent Online Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk Management Tool: Usability and Acceptability Testing.

Publications

The iPrevent Online Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk Management Tool: Usability and Acceptability Testing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets