USER STUDIES

Usability Session 1: User Need's Analysis
Usability Session 2: User Learning Mental Model Analysis

Usability Session 1: User Need's Analysis

Objective:
• To understand the mental model of patients with non•emergent medical conditions.
• To design the functionality of the interface in accordance to user needs.
• To understand patient•doctor interactions and how to re•create it with the interface.

User Demographics
4 general users of technology
3 student patients in Cowell Medical Center's waiting room
1 traige nurse

Questions for Users

Observations/ Results from Patients
• Patients familiar with using the internet / technology resource as an education tool.
• Patients found these resources helpful.
• Patients felt that the information was helpful but still wanted to see a physician to confirm the information.
• Patients were concerned about the accuracy of the information.
• Patients felt like the education made them more informed patients and helped them ask more useful questions in their visit.
• Patients complained that the doctor did not spend enough time.
• Patients felt like the answers that their doctors gave them were more abbrieviated.
• Patients felt like this would be a good tool for an in•between time lapse between visits to their physician.

Decisions from Observations

• The tool addresses a legitimate need in patients with non•emergent medical conditions.
• Patients are nervous about it replacing their doctor and would be more prone to using it if it is a service provided on top of their doctor visits.
• Patients do become more informed and empowered patients after education prior to their visit.
• Positioning the tool as a intermediary tool that serves the patient in between visits makes it a more palatable to both physician and patient.

Observations from Triage Nurse
• Triage nurse understood the value of the tool immediately.
• Triage nurse talked about the process of triaging less like diagnosis but more like prioritizing.
• Triage nurse pointed out the limitation of the tool in that it would not be able to take the emotional status of the patient, however felt that the trade•off of convienience would be something that the patient would value.
• Another limitation of the tool would be to discern patients who play down their symptoms.In general, it is better to err on the "safe side" and have the patient come in.

Design Decisions made
• The tool will be positioned as an intermediary tool supplementing the patient's doctor's visits.
• The video conferencing tool will only appear when the symptoms signal an emergent medical condition.
• Having the video conferencing feature there at all times will discourage the patient from learning about their condition and going straight to a provider. ( prediction confirmed by patient and nurse )
Back

Usability Session 2: Interaction Usability and Education Mental Model

Objectives:
• To user-test general interactive functionality of the prototype.
• To user-test the patient's understanding of the objective of the application ( with explanation )
• To user-test which education model of the prototype works better.

Demographics:
2 general users of technology
1 patient who uses the internet for medical education

Prototypes Tested
Prototype 1 Prototype 2



Functionality Observations
Pop-up Box Dismissal
• Prototype 1

• All 3 User did not know how to dismiss the education pop-up box.
• All 3 Users suggested that the box be dismissed either with a checked box on the top right hand side of the box.
• All 3 Users said the most intuitive way was to click back on the main interface to dismiss the box.

Color Scheme
• 2 User found the color scheme of Prototype 2 to be warmer and more inviting.
• 1 User found the color scheme of Prototype 1 to be cold and clinical.
• 1 User liked the clean-ness of Prototype 1.

Information Design
• 3 Users found the information design of Prototype 2 to be clearer and easier to use.
• 3 Users found it easy to get to the most important information
( treatment and alert ) on Prototype 1 easier.
• 1 User suggested the on Prototype 1 that the interface further emphasized the most important information.


Onscreen Instructions and Button naming
• 1 User suggested that the first button be named "Submit symptoms" and the second button be named "Confirm symptoms"
• 1 User expressed confusion about the word "Confirm symptoms" because he associated it with the physician confirming the symptoms.
Educational Component Integration
• 1 User liked the internet integration of Prototype 2 and felt like it would encourage her to explore and learn more about her condition.
• 2 Users felt the educational interface of Prototype 1 was confining and more controlled.
• 1 User was concerned about the validity of the source of information in Prototype 2 and liked the "internal education" feel of Prototype 1.
• 1 User felt that Prototype 2 was busier and wanted the cleanness of Prototype 1.

User suggestions for navigation:

• 1 User said "Why can't I have both ?"
• 1 User suggested that perhaps the patient can get to the first Prototype's layout initially and when they click on an educational link they move to a layout like Prototype
• 1 User said that that would be to disorientating
Back