Previous mobile usability studies are only pertinent in the context of ergonomics,physical user interface,and mobility aspects.In addition,much of the previous mobile usability conception was built on desktop co...Previous mobile usability studies are only pertinent in the context of ergonomics,physical user interface,and mobility aspects.In addition,much of the previous mobile usability conception was built on desktop computing measurements,such as desktop and web application checklists,or scarcely addressed the mobile user interface.Moreover,the studies focus mainly on interface features for desktop applications and do not reflect comprehensive mobile interface features such as navigation drawers and spinners.Therefore,conducting usability evaluation using conventional usability measurement would result in irrelevant results.In addition,the resulting works are tailored for usability testing,which requires highly skilled evaluators and usability specialists(e.g.,usability testers and user experience designers),who are rarely integrated into a development team.The lack of expertise could lead to unreliable usability evaluations.This paper presents a review from industrial experts on a comprehensive and feasible usability evaluation framework developed in our previous work.The framework is dedicated to smartphone apps,which integrate evaluator skills and design concerns.However,there is no evidence of its usefulness in practice.Therefore,the usefulness of the framework measurement for evaluating apps’usability in the eyes of non-usability specialists is empirically assessed in this paper through an expert review.The expert review involved eleven industrial developers and was complemented by a semi-structured interview.The method is replicated in comparison with a framework from another study.The findings show that the formulated framework significantly outperformed the framework(p=0.0286)from other studies with large effect sizes(r=1.81)in terms of usefulness.展开更多
目的:系统评价急性心肌梗死临床指南和共识的方法学质量和报告质量。方法:计算机系统检索PubMed、EMbase、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、万方数据知识服务平台(WanFang Data)以及中国知网(CNKI)等数据库,并辅助检索国...目的:系统评价急性心肌梗死临床指南和共识的方法学质量和报告质量。方法:计算机系统检索PubMed、EMbase、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、万方数据知识服务平台(WanFang Data)以及中国知网(CNKI)等数据库,并辅助检索国际指南协作网(GIN)、英国国家健康与临床优化研究所(NICE)网站、美国国家指南信息交换中心(NGC)网站和医脉通网站,以获取急性心肌梗死相关的临床指南及共识,检索时段为建库至2025年4月30日。由2名研究人员依据严格的纳入与排除标准对文献进行筛选,并进行资料提取。采用指南研究与评价工具(第2版)(AGREEⅡ)和医疗实践指南报告规范(RIGHT)工具对文献质量进行评估。结果:共纳入急性心肌梗死指南和共识11部。亚组分析结果显示,指南类在AGREEⅡ的2个领域(范围和目的、参与人员)得分高于共识类;基于循证制订的指南和共识在AGREEⅡ的6个领域评分和RIGHT评分均高于基于专家意见或综述等制订的指南和共识;国外指南和共识在AGREEⅡ的6个领域评分和RIGHT评分均高于国内指南和共识。结论:当前已发布的急性心肌梗死临床指南与共识在方法学质量及报告质量方面均表现欠佳。相较于国外,我国相关指南与共识尚存在提升空间。建议相关专业机构及研究者参照AGREEⅡ和RIGHT评价准则,致力于制定并推广高质量的急性心肌梗死诊疗指南与共识。展开更多
基金partially funded by the Research University Grant Scheme(RUGS),Universiti Putra Malaysia(UPM).
文摘Previous mobile usability studies are only pertinent in the context of ergonomics,physical user interface,and mobility aspects.In addition,much of the previous mobile usability conception was built on desktop computing measurements,such as desktop and web application checklists,or scarcely addressed the mobile user interface.Moreover,the studies focus mainly on interface features for desktop applications and do not reflect comprehensive mobile interface features such as navigation drawers and spinners.Therefore,conducting usability evaluation using conventional usability measurement would result in irrelevant results.In addition,the resulting works are tailored for usability testing,which requires highly skilled evaluators and usability specialists(e.g.,usability testers and user experience designers),who are rarely integrated into a development team.The lack of expertise could lead to unreliable usability evaluations.This paper presents a review from industrial experts on a comprehensive and feasible usability evaluation framework developed in our previous work.The framework is dedicated to smartphone apps,which integrate evaluator skills and design concerns.However,there is no evidence of its usefulness in practice.Therefore,the usefulness of the framework measurement for evaluating apps’usability in the eyes of non-usability specialists is empirically assessed in this paper through an expert review.The expert review involved eleven industrial developers and was complemented by a semi-structured interview.The method is replicated in comparison with a framework from another study.The findings show that the formulated framework significantly outperformed the framework(p=0.0286)from other studies with large effect sizes(r=1.81)in terms of usefulness.
基金supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China(611750 68,61472168,61163004)Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan Province(2013FA130)Talent Promotion Project of Ministry of Science and Technology(2014HE001)
文摘目的:系统评价急性心肌梗死临床指南和共识的方法学质量和报告质量。方法:计算机系统检索PubMed、EMbase、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、万方数据知识服务平台(WanFang Data)以及中国知网(CNKI)等数据库,并辅助检索国际指南协作网(GIN)、英国国家健康与临床优化研究所(NICE)网站、美国国家指南信息交换中心(NGC)网站和医脉通网站,以获取急性心肌梗死相关的临床指南及共识,检索时段为建库至2025年4月30日。由2名研究人员依据严格的纳入与排除标准对文献进行筛选,并进行资料提取。采用指南研究与评价工具(第2版)(AGREEⅡ)和医疗实践指南报告规范(RIGHT)工具对文献质量进行评估。结果:共纳入急性心肌梗死指南和共识11部。亚组分析结果显示,指南类在AGREEⅡ的2个领域(范围和目的、参与人员)得分高于共识类;基于循证制订的指南和共识在AGREEⅡ的6个领域评分和RIGHT评分均高于基于专家意见或综述等制订的指南和共识;国外指南和共识在AGREEⅡ的6个领域评分和RIGHT评分均高于国内指南和共识。结论:当前已发布的急性心肌梗死临床指南与共识在方法学质量及报告质量方面均表现欠佳。相较于国外,我国相关指南与共识尚存在提升空间。建议相关专业机构及研究者参照AGREEⅡ和RIGHT评价准则,致力于制定并推广高质量的急性心肌梗死诊疗指南与共识。
