Usability engineering in practice: developing an intervention for post-stroke therapy during a global pandemic

References

• International Standards Organisation (ISO). Ergonomics of human-system interaction — part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. ISO 9241-210:2019. [cited 2021 Nov 4]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html
   Google Scholar
• De Vito Dabbs AI, Myers BA, Mc Curry KR, et al. User-centered design and interactive health technologies for patients. Comput Inform Nurs. 2009;27(3):175–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bias RG, Mayhew DJ. Cost-justifying usability: an update for the internet age. San Francisco (CA): Morgan Kaufmann Publishers; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Howard J, Fisher Z, Kemp AH, et al. Exploring the barriers to using assistive technology for individuals with chronic conditions: a meta-synthesis review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022;17(4):390–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park JI, Lee HY, Kim H, et al. Lack of acceptance of digital healthcare in the medical market: Addressing old problems raised by various clinical professionals and developing possible solutions. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36(37):e253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtis K, Price K. Factors that influence older people’s engagement with digital health technology. Nurs Older People. 2017;29(10):27–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Human factors and usability engineering – guidance for medical devices including drug-device combination products. Version 2.0 January 2021. [cited 2021 Sep 22]. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/645862/HumanFactors_Medical-Devices_v1.0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ISO 14971:2019 Medical devices. Application of risk management to medical devices EN. [cited 2021 Sep 22]. https://shop.bsigroup.com/products/medical-devices-application-of-risk-management-to-medical-devices-4
   Google Scholar
• IEC 62366-1:2015 Medical devices, Part 1: application of usability engineering to medical devices. [cited 2021 Sep 22]. https://www.iso.org/standard/63179.html
   Google Scholar
• IEC/TR 62366-2:2016. Medical devices, Part 2: guidance on the application of usability engineering to medical devices. [cited 2021 Sep 22]. https://www.iso.org/standard/69126.html
   Google Scholar
• ISO - IEC 62304:2006/Amd 1:2015 - Medical device software — software life cycle processes — Amendment 1. [cited 2021 Nov 9]. https://www.iso.org/standard/64686.html
   Google Scholar
• IEC 60601-1-6:2010 + AMD1:2013 + AMD2:2020 CSV Medical electrical equipment - part 1-6: General requirements for basic safety and essential performance - collateral standard: usability. [cited 2021 Nov 9]. https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/6738
   Google Scholar
• IEC 60601-1-11. Medical electrical equipment. General requirements for basic safety and essential performance. Collateral Standard: Requirements for medical electrical equipment and medical electrical systems used in the home healthcare environment. 2015. [cited 2022 Feb 12]. https://www.iso.org/standard/65529.html
   Google Scholar
• EU Medical Device Regulation 2017/745. [cited 2021 Nov 4]. Available from: https://www.medical-device-regulation.eu/download-mdr/
   Google Scholar
• EU Medical Device Directive : 93/42/EEC. [cited 2021 Nov 4]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/medical-devices
   Google Scholar
• ANSI/AAMI HE75. 2009. (R2018) human factors engineering - design of medical devices. [cited 2021 Nov 10]. https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/aami/ansiaamihe752009r2018
   Google Scholar
• Bayer, et al. BSI White Paper: engaging stakeholders in the home medical device market. British Standards 2021. BSI/UK/495/ST/0814/en/HL. [cited 2021 Sep 22]. Available from: https://www.bsigroup.com/LocalFiles/EN-AU/ISO%2013485%20Medical%20Devices/Whitepapers/WP5___BSI_md_home_medical_devices_whitepaper_UK_EN.pdf
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy A, Moody L. Assistive technology (at) usability and adoption: future drivers. In: Woodcock A, Moody L, McDonagh D, Jain A, Jain LC, editors. Design of assistive technology for ageing populations. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. v–viii 4. (Intelligent Systems Reference Library; vol. 167). ISBN: 978-3-030-26292-1.
   Google Scholar
• Riihiaho S. Usability testing. In: Norman K, Kirakowski J, editors. The Wiley handbook of human computer interaction set. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Moody L. User-centred health design: reflections on D4D’s experiences and challenges. J Med Eng Technol. 2014;39(7):395–403.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ISO 13485 2016. Medical devices - quality management systems - requirements for regulatory purposes. [cited 2021 Nov 10]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/59752.html
   Google Scholar
• Jeays-Ward K, Lanfranchi V, McCarthy AD, et al. Dignity in ageing: living well for longer. In: Woodcock, editors. Design of assistive technology for ageing populations. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 147–168.
   Google Scholar
• Antonini M. An overview of co-design: advantages, challenges and perspectives of users’ involvement in the design process. J Des Think. 2021;2(1):45–60.
   Google Scholar
• Bitkina OV, Kim HK, Park J. Usability and user experience of medical devices: an overview of the current state, analysis methodologies, and future challenges. Int J Ind Ergon. 2020;76:102932.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borsci S, Federici S, Malizia A, et al. Shaking the usability tree: why usability is not a dead end, and a constructive way forward. Behav Inform Technol. 2019;38(5):519–532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vindrola-Padros C, Chisnall G, Cooper S, et al. Carrying out rapid qualitative research during a pandemic: emerging lessons from COVID-19. Qual Health Res. 2020;30(14):2192–2204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodds S, Hess AC. Adapting research methodology during COVID-19: lessons for transformative service research. JOSM. 2021;32(2):203–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willan J, King AJ, Jeffery K, et al. Challenges for NHS hospitals during COVID-19 epidemic. BMJ. 2020;368:m1117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sentinel Stoke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) NE. Stroke Health Economics Project: A new NHS resource for data on the health and social care costs of stroke [Internet]. London. [cited 2021 Nov 10]; Available from: https://www.strokeaudit.org/
   Google Scholar
• King D, Wittenberg R, Patel A, Quayyum Z, Berdunov V, Knapp M. The future incidence, prevalence and costs of stroke in the UK. Age and Ageing 2020;49:277–282.
   Google Scholar
• Bhimani R, Anderson L. Clinical understanding of spasticity: Implications for practice. Rehabil Res Pract. 2014;2014:279175–279110.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brainin M, Norrving B, Sunnerhagen KS, et al. Poststroke chronic disease management: towards improved identification and interventions for poststroke spasticity-related complications. Int J Stroke. 2011;6(1):42–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kheder A, Nair KPS. Spasticity: pathophysiology, evaluation and management. Pract Neurol. 2012;12(5):289–298.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lundström E, Smits A, Borg J, et al. Four-fold increase in direct costs of stroke survivors with spasticity compared with stroke survivors without spasticity: the first year after the event. Stroke. 2010;41(2):319–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin Y, Zhao Y. Post-stroke upper limb spasticity incidence for different cerebral infarction site. Open Med. 2018;13(1):227–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wissel J, Verrier M, Simpson DM, et al. Post-stroke spasticity: predictors of early development and considerations for therapeutic intervention. PM R. 2015;7(1):60–67.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heller BW, Clarke AJ, Good TR, et al. Automated setup of functional electrical stimulation for drop foot using a novel 64-channel prototype stimulator and electrode array: results from a gait-lab based study. Med Eng Phys. 2013;35(1):74–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovak M, Chindo J, Nair K, et al. Sensory barrage stimulation in the treatment of elbow spasticity: a crossover double blind randomized pilot trial. Neuromodulation. 2016;19(2):220–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves ML, Chotiyarnwong C, Nair KPS, et al. Caregiver delivered sensory electrical stimulation for post stroke upper limb spasticity: a single blind crossover randomized feasibility study. Health Technol. 2020;10(5):1265–1274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson T, Kenney L, Barker AT, et al. Enhancing public involvement in assistive technology design research. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(3):258–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliot J. Personal correspondence from public involvement lead, health research authority. Entitled ‘NHS ethics guidance, PPI, co-production letter.’ Received by email on 2021 July 6.
   Google Scholar
• Stroke Association Information on coronavirus for stroke survivors. [cited 2021 Sep 24]. Available from: https://www.stroke.org.uk/finding-support/information-coronavirus-stroke-survivors/
   Google Scholar
• Portegies MLP, Selwaness M, Hofman A, et al. Left-Sided strokes are more often recognized than Right-Sided strokes: the Rotterdam study. Stroke. 2015;46(1):252–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berthier ML. Poststroke aphasia : epidemiology, pathophysiology and treatment. Drugs Aging. 2005;22(2):163–182. PMID: 15733022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier S, Dahrén K, Wahlgren I. Benefits of remote usability testing. I/In: 14th International Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries, 2–4 Nov 2021, Online. 2021. [cited 2022 Ma 28]. Available from: https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/27101/
   Google Scholar
• Choi J, Cody JL, Fiske S. Usability testing of tablet-based cognitive behavioral intervention application to improve a simple walking activity for older adults with arthritis fatigue. Geriatr Nurs. 2021;42(2):473–478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill JR, Harrington AB, Adeoye P, et al. Going remote—demonstration and evaluation of remote technology delivery and usability assessment with older adults: survey study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(3):e26702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irlitti A, Hoang T, Vetere F. Surrogate-aloud: a human surrogate method for remote usability evaluation and ideation in virtual reality. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2021. p. 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• NIHR Centre for Engagement and Dissemination Centre. Innovations in Clinical Trial Design and Delivery for the Under-served (INCLUDE) | NIHR. [cited 2022 Apr 2]. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/innovation-areas/include.htm
   Google Scholar
• European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI). What is EUPATI? [cited 2022 Apr 2]. https://eupati.eu/about-us/
   Google Scholar
• The Kings Fund. Patient involvement: our work on the role of patients and the public in health and care and service design. [cited 2022 Apr 2]. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/topics/patient-involvement
   Google Scholar