Table 2.
Pilot study usability testinga (N=60).
| Responseb | Australian (n=41), n (%) | French (n=19), n (%) |
| Easy to use | 40 (98) | 18 (95) |
| I would need support to use it | 0 (0) | 3 (16) |
| I would use it again | 41 (100) | 16 (84) |
| Had a clear, clean design | 40 (98) | 18 (95) |
| Required minimum screen changes | 41 (100) | N/Ac |
| I found it easy and quick to comprehend | 25 (61) | 18 (95) |
| The instructions were clear and unambiguous | 37 (90) | 17 (90) |
| The buttons organized and easy to find | 35 (85) | 19 (100) |
| I understood the function | 28 (68) | 19 (100) |
| I found it easy to navigate | 40 (98) | 19 (100) |
| The size, style, and font were appropriate | 39 (95) | N/A |
| It was a pleasant experience | 38 (93) | 17 (90) |
| I found it intuitive to use | 31 (76) | 15 (79) |
| I was concerned about confidentiality | 10 (24) | 9 (47) |
aPilot test was carried out in a primary health care setting (Australia) and a hospital-based setting (France).
bResponses to the questionnaire item “The application was judged to be.”
cN/A: Not applicable (two items were not asked of French participants).