Table 4.
Participants’ (n = 45a) suggestions for improving the wiki website.
| Aspect of improvement | Respondents suggesting the aspect |
Sample quotes (translated from Dutch) from in-depth interviews (I) and online questionnaires (Q) |
||
| n | % | |||
| Usability of the website | ||||
| Findability of the website | 10 | 22% | Q:Hard to find
Q: I think it is awkward that the website is only findable through the Freya website I: I wouldn’t know how to find the website, unless through the Freya website |
|
| Accessibility of the website | 2 | 4% | I: I was unable to find the log-in location or request a new password | |
| Content of the website | ||||
| Comprehensiveness of clarifying text | 1 | 2% | Q: Unclear | |
| Clearness of description of the goal of the wiki | 4 | 8% | I: The description is a bit unclear; therefore, I previously thought to check it more precisely, but I still haven’t done this
I: I had not concluded that the recommendations were directly integrated in a professional guideline |
|
| Clearness of instructions for use | 1 | 2% | ||
| Satisfaction with formulated recommendations | 8 | 16% | I:...but there are recommendations I am not satisfied with, I would suggest that participants can prioritize recommendations that they are satisfied with in an earlier stage, then you only have to list the most important recommendations in one screen | |
| Similarity between actual preferences and recommendations | 4 | 8% | Q: I would like to see why a specific recommendation was formulated, separately from the recommendation
I: There are too many recommendations on the website, but there are recommendations I am not satisfied with. I would suggest that participants can prioritize recommendations that they are satisfied with |
|
| Clarity of the structure in which recommendations are placed on the website | 30 | 66% | I: Structure is good but the provided sections are incomplete, for example the care provided by a psychologist or other forms of mental counseling. Psychosocial concerns are always underestimated in fertility care
Q: The used structure is good, but for searching an existing recommendation it would be valuable to add a search function to the website |
|
| Relationship between length and number of recommendations and their presentation on one screen | 32 | 71% | Q: There are too many recommendations on the website
I: Recommendations are too long, sometimes it’s more like a story, which is very interesting, but I wonder if the doctors are taking this as serious input to a guideline Q: The prioritization is hard due to the large number of recommendations |
|
| Education provision on the website | 19 | 42% | Q: It might be valuable if the website provides usable links to high-quality websites
Q: Information on treatment options might enrich the website Q: I would like to find information on causal factors of infertility Q: Practical information about compensations for treatment per insurance company, regional psychological services, plural miscarriages, infertility, and referral |
|
| Characteristics of the wiki | ||||
| Usability of wiki methodology | 6 | 13% | Q: The website is not user friendly...the number of visible recommendations makes it unclear
Q: Recommendations given contain too many words I: I really don’t have a clue about what constitutes a high-quality recommendation I: It would be valuable to apply an automatic program, through which patients are able to formulate recommendations |
|
| Accessibility of wiki methodology | ||||
| Efficiency of wiki methodology | 5 | 11% | Q: Prioritizing is hard and not efficient in this stage, the list of recommendations is too long
I: The efficiency might be improved if you ask patients immediately after formulating a recommendation to prioritize the most important recommendations |
|
| Layout of the website | ||||
| Impression of the layout | 33 | 73% | Q: Nonattractive/not a modern/not a fashionable website
Q: The layout is not from today Q: Looks unprofessional |
|
| Communication with wiki users | ||||
| Marketing | 6 | 13% | Q: This good initiative requires a better marketing approach to reach more participants | |
| Community feeling of the wiki | 3 | 6% | I: More communication on related activities and results will increase the number of patients that will come back
Q: Effect of the recommendations on the guideline is unclear |
|
a 45 participants completed the online evaluation questionnaire, of whom 3 participated in the in-depth interviews.