Table 4.
Relevance of each problem type (n=10).
| Problem type | Relevancea= , weighted scores |
||
|
|
Likelihood | Impact | Relevance |
| Trouble finding search criteria result in what user wants | 20 | 17 | 18.4 |
| Finding the search bar is difficult | 18 | 17 | 17.5 |
| Hard to find articles by disease | 21 | 22 | 21.5 |
| Email of website contact opens email software or application | 19 |
22 |
20.4 |
| Cannot locate the email of the website contact person | 17 | 17 | 17 |
| Need clarity on who to contact for article behind a firewall | 20 |
22 | 21 |
| Some windows blocked by a firewall or files won’t open | 22 | 22 | 22 |
| Search bar is missing | 20 | 24 | 21.9 |
| Clicking on aspects of the webpage results in no action | 14 | 18 | 15.9 |
| Difficulty returning to a previous page (“going back”) | 15 | 14 | 14.5 |
aRelevance=
or the square root of the likelihood score×the impact score (Van den Haak et al [43]). Cutoff scores were 5-11.66 for low relevance, 11.67-18.33 for relevant, and 18.34-25 for highly relevant.