Dataset Information

An Analysis of US Academic Medical Center Websites: Usability Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health care organizations are tasked with providing web-based health resources and information. Usability refers to the ease of user experience on a website. In this study, we conducted a usability analysis of academic medical centers in the United States, which, to the best of our knowledge, has not been previously carried out.

Objective

The primary aims of the study were to the following: (1) adapt a preexisting usability scoring methodology to academic medical centers; (2) apply and test this methodology on a sample set of academic medical center websites; and (3) make recommendations from these results on potential areas of improvements for our sample of academic medical center websites.

Methods

All website usability testing took place from June 1, 2020, to December 15, 2020. We replicated a methodology developed in previous literature and applied it to academic medical centers. Our sample included 73 US academic medical centers. Usability was split into four broad categories: accessibility (the ability of those with low levels of computer literacy to access and navigate the hospital's website); marketing (the ability of websites to be found through search engines and the relevance of descriptions to the links provided); content quality (grammar, frequency of information updates, material relevancy, and readability); and technology (download speed, quality of the programming code, and website infrastructure). Using these tools, we scored each website in each category. The composite of key factors in each category contributed to an overall "general usability" score for each website. An overall score was then calculated by applying a weighted percentage across all factors and was used for the final "overall usability" ranking.

Results

The category with the highest average score was technology, with a 0.82 (SD 0.068, SE 0.008). The lowest-performing category was content quality, with an average of 0.22 (SD 0.069, SE 0.008). As these numbers reflect weighted percentages as an integer, the higher the score, the greater the overall usability in that category.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that technology, on average, was the highest-scored variable among academic medical center websites. Because website functionality is essential to a user's experience, it is justified that academic medical centers invest in optimal website performance. The overall lowest-scored variable was content quality. A potential reason for this may be that academic medical center websites are usually larger in size, making it difficult to monitor the increased quantity of content. An easy way to improve this variable is to conduct more frequent website audits to assess readability, grammar, and relevance. Marketing is another area in which these organizations have potential for improvement. Our recommendation is that organizations utilize search engine optimization techniques to improve their online visibility and discoverability.

SUBMITTER: Gale JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8734930 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcademic Medical Centers (AMCs) must simultaneously serve different purposes: Delivery of high quality healthcare services to patients, as the main mission, supported by other core missions such as academic activities, i.e., researching, teaching and tutoring, while maintaining solvency. This study aims to develop a methodology for constructing models evaluating the academic value provided by AMCs and implementing it at the largest AMC in Israel.MethodsThirty five practiced educators and researchers, academic experts, faculty members and executives, all employed by a metropolitan 1500-bed AMC, were involved in developing academic quality indicators. First, an initial list of AMCs' academic quality indicators was drafted, using a literature review and consulting scholars. Afterwards, additional data and preferences were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews, complemented by a three-round Delphi Panel. Finally, the methodology for constructing a model evaluating the academic value provided by the AMC was developed.ResultsThe composite academic quality indicators methodology consists of nine indicators (relative weight in parentheses): 'Scientific Publications Value' (18.7%), 'Completed Studies' (13.5%), 'Authors Value' (13.0%), 'Residents Quality' (11.3%), 'Competitive Grants Budget' (10.2%), 'Academic Training' (8.7%), 'Academic Positions' (8.3%), 'Number of Studies' (8.3%) and 'Academic Supervision' (8.0%). These indicators were grouped into three core categories: 'Education', 'Research' and 'Publications', having almost the same importance on a scale from zero to one (0-1), i.e., 0.363, 0.320, and 0.317, respectively. The results demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach-alpha range: 0.79-0.86).ConclusionsWe have found a gap in the ability to measure academic value provided by AMCs. The main contribution of this research is the development of methodology for constructing evaluation models for AMCs academic performance. Further studies are needed to further test the validity and reliability of the proposed methodology at other sites.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The first year of graduate medical education is an important period in the professional development of physicians. Disruptive behavior interferes with safe and effective clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and nature of disruptive behavior perceived by interns and attending physicians in a teaching hospital environment. METHOD: All 516 interns at Partners HealthCare (Boston, MA) during the 2010 and 2011 academic years were eligible to complete an anonymous questionnaire. A convenience nonrandom sample of 40 attending physicians also participated. RESULTS: A total of 394 of 516 eligible interns (76.4%) participated. Attendings and interns each reported that their team members generally behaved professionally (87.5% versus 80.4%, respectively). A significantly greater proportion of attendings than interns felt respected at work (90.0% versus 71.5% respectively; P = .01). Disruptive behavior was experienced by 93% of interns; 54% reported that they experienced it once a month or more. Interns reported disruptive behavior significantly more frequently than attending physicians, including increased reports of condescending behavior (odds ratio [OR], 5.46 for interns compared with attendings; P < .001), exclusion from decision making (OR, 6.97; P < .001), and berating (OR, 4.84; P = .02). Inappropriate jokes, abusive language, and gender bias were also reported, and they were not significantly more frequent among interns than attending physicians. Interns most frequently identified nurses as the source of disruption, and were significantly more likely than faculty to identify nurses as the source of disruptive behavior (OR, 10.40; P < .001). Attendings reported other physicians as the most frequent source of disruption. CONCLUSIONS: Although interns generally feel respected at work, they frequently experience disruptive behavior. Interns described more disruptive behaviors than a convenience sample of attending physicians at our institution.

Project description:Orthopaedic care is shifting to alternative payment models. We examined whether New York University Langone Medical Center achieved savings under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative.This study was a difference-in-differences study of Medicare fee-for-service patients hospitalized from April 2011 to June 2012 and October 2013 to December 2014 for lower extremity joint arthroplasty, cardiac valve procedures, or spine surgery (intervention groups), or for congestive heart failure, major bowel procedures, medical peripheral vascular disorders, medical noninfectious orthopaedic care, or stroke (control group). We examined total episode costs and costs by service category.We included 2,940 intervention episodes and 1,474 control episodes. Relative to the trend in the control group, lower extremity joint arthroplasty episodes achieved the greatest savings: adjusted average episode cost during the intervention period decreased by $3,017 (95% confidence interval [CI], -$6,066 to $31). For cardiac procedures, the adjusted average episode cost decreased by $2,999 (95% CI, -$8,103 to $2,105), and for spinal fusion, it increased by $8,291 (95% CI, $2,879 to $13,703). Savings were driven predominantly by shifting postdischarge care from inpatient rehabilitation facilities to home. Spinal fusion index admission costs increased because of changes in surgical technique.Under bundled payment, New York University Langone Medical Center decreased total episode costs in patients undergoing lower extremity joint arthroplasty. For patients undergoing cardiac valve procedures, evidence of savings was not as strong, and for patients undergoing spinal fusion, total episode costs increased. For all three conditions, the proportion of patients referred to inpatient rehabilitation facilities upon discharge decreased. These changes were not associated with an increase in index hospital length of stay or readmission rate.Opportunities for savings under bundled payment may be greater for lower extremity joint arthroplasty than for other conditions.