The Karma system is currently undergoing maintenance (Monday, January 29, 2018).
The maintenance period has been extended to 8PM EST.
Karma Credits will not be available for redeeming during maintenance.
Making health care interventions and technologies usable, safe, and effective
Editorial Board members are currently being recruited, please contact us if you are interested (jmir.editorial.office at gmail.com).
Right click to copy or hit: ctrl+c (cmd+c on mac)
Background: Health-related data’s users have trouble understanding and interpreting combined statistical and mapping information. This is the second round of a usability study conducted after we mod...
Background: Health-related data’s users have trouble understanding and interpreting combined statistical and mapping information. This is the second round of a usability study conducted after we modified and simplified our tested maps based on the first round’s results. Objective: To explore if the tested maps’ usability improved by modifying the maps according to the first round’s results Methods: We recruited 13 cancer professionals from National American Central Cancer registries (NACCR) 2016 conference. The study involved three phases per participant: A pretest questionnaire, the multi-task usability test, and the System Usability Scale (SUS). Software was used to record the computer screen during the trial and the users’ spoken comments. We measured several qualitative and quantitative usability metrics. The study’s data was analyzed using spreadsheet software. Results: In the current study, unlike the previous round, there was no significant statistical relationship between the subjects’ performance on the study test and the experience in GIS tools (P = .17 previously was .03). Three out of the four (75%) of our subjects with a bachelor’s degree or less accomplished the given tasks effectively and efficiently. This study developed a comparable satisfaction results to the first round study, despite that the previous round’s participants were highly educated and more experienced with GIS. Conclusions: By considering the round one’s results and by updating our maps, we made the tested maps simpler to be used by subjects who have little experience in using GIS technology, and have little spatial and statistical knowledge.