Table 4.
Summary of overall usability and acceptability of dashboard.
| Author (year) | Dashboard type | User group (n) | Usabilitya | Key findings | Acceptabilityb | Key findings |
| Algilani et al [22] (2016) | Clinical |
|
Low | Interviews: Barriers to navigation and access, documentation and monitoring, and subject matter. | High | Interviews: Reported acceptability and management of own care. |
| Bail et al [33] (2022) | Clinical |
|
Medium | Interviews, focus groups, and surveyc: Users reported positively on the application across multiple devices, ease of access, scheduling and documentation of information at point-of-care (formatting and structure of alerts), and instantaneity of changes to care plan (rather than waiting hours to weeks). Some users felt that the app interfered with the rhythm of care (eg, repetitive information), lacked training and login for agency staff, resulting in workarounds and missing data, and offering different styles of alerts and flagging (eg, different adverse events and health conditions). | High | Interviews, focus groups and surveyc: Users reported reduced time spent on information retrieval and documentation; reduced errors by omission and missed documentation; improved staff and resident satisfaction; built consistency working with clinical treatment protocols; assisted management decisions and allocation of resources. |
| Bell et al [32] (2020) | Clinical |
|
Low | Surveyc: Little preference for using dashboard to receive prescribing notifications over traditional methods; user satisfaction, tool integration, and interface intuitiveness. | Medium | Surveyc: Percentage of time of prescribing recommendations accepted by skilled nursing facilities was adequate (66% uptake). |
| Cui et al [34] (2018) | Clinical prototype |
|
High | Survey: TAMMd found a large proportion of participants who found the dashboard easy to learn, use, and navigate (89%), and were satisfied with the component (100%). | High | Survey: TAMM results highlighting considerable perceived usefulness of the dashboard in improving assessment quality, collecting data, and standardizing information (100% of users). |
| Dowding et al [30] (2018) | Clinical prototype |
|
Medium | Surveyc: Large percentage of users who were able to use the dashboard immediately (91%) and use icons to switch between data types (96%). Heuristic evaluation and task analysis: Time taken to complete tasks differed (eg, 5.7 minutes for nurses vs 1.4 minutes for expert users). |
High | Survey: High SUSe (73.2) and QUISf (6.1) scores for overall user reactions. |
| Dowding et al [26] (2019) | Clinical prototype |
|
Medium | Surveyc: >50% of participants had difficulty navigating dashboard and interpreting data in the dashboard due to interoperability. | High | Survey: High SUS (73.2) scores. Interviews: users valued the ability to see trends for vital signs over time. |
| Kramer et al [20] (2016) | Clinical simulation |
|
Medium | Survey: High SUS (86.5) scores, however, reported improvements in accuracy (ie, number of medication reconciliation discrepancies using electronic dashboard vs paper) and amount of time to complete cases (ie, efficiency; reported similar completion time for paper-based process vs electronic dashboard) was mixed. | High | Surveyc: Majority preferred the electronic module compared to paper-based processes (89.5% of users). |
| Lanzarone et al [27] (2017) | Administrative |
|
Medium | Surveyc: Low completion times for task completion, increased distance traveled; however, there was minimal change in nurse allocated to visits (ie, good satisfaction among older adults receiving care) and low numbers of overloaded nurses. | Medium | Surveyc: Mixed reports on the satisfaction of older adults receiving care, applicability of tool integration, and visualization of the information, with multiple recommendations. |
| Lee and Huebner [17] (2017) | Clinical prototype |
|
High | Interviews: Users provided positive responses regarding the module’s ability to locate laboratory findings quickly, review information easily, and access decision support. | High | Surveyc: High user ratings of clinical dashboard usefulness and necessity data (100%) particularly for supporting high-quality home health care. |
| Mei et al [23] (2013) | Clinical |
|
High | Survey: High TAMg scores (reported on system usability (eg, time taken to complete, the proportion of participants reporting ease of use) (100%). | High | Surveyc: High user agreement for improving job performance and accomplishing more work following system implementation. |
| Papaioannou et al [35] (2010) | Clinical, MEDeINR |
|
High | Surveyc: 100% of users found the platform was easy/very easy to use with improvements in therapeutic range and time in sub/supratherapeutic ranges. | Medium to high | Surveyc: 75% of users agreed platform decreased workload and 92% felt communication was better. Interviews: feedback found decreased anxiety around prescribing and emphasized improvements for training. |
| Shiells et al [19] (2020) | EHRh |
|
Low | Interviews: Users reported the absence of core assessment scales in the records, systems being not interoperable, and frustration with organizational support for system access and training. | Low | Interviews: Users reported a low preference for the device (preferring traditional methods of a desktop computer and paper) and its functionality, perceiving it as more work. |
| Wild et al [18] (2021) | Clinical, ambient |
|
Low | Surveyc: Low proportion of users who logged into the dashboard (44%). Interviews: users reported technical difficulties and continued unfamiliarity with the system. | Medium | Interviews: Users reported some enthusiasm about interest areas (eg, sleep and medication adherence) and appreciated real-time metrics (eg, sleep duration) being captured. |
aUsability refers to the extent to which the dashboard could be used by the specified users to achieve their goals effectively and efficiently.
bAcceptability refers to the satisfaction with the dashboard and future adoption by specified users.
cSurvey developed in-house by researchers.
dTAMM: Technology Acceptance Model for Mobile.
eSUS: System Usability Scale.
fQUIS: Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction.
gTAM: Technology Acceptance Model.
hEHR: electronic health record.