Titre :

How to interact with medical terminologies? Formative usability evaluations comparing three approaches for supporting the use of MedDRA by pharmacovigilance specialists.

Auteur(s) :

Marcilly, Romaric [Auteur]
METRICS : Evaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales - ULR 2694
Douze, Laura [Auteur]
METRICS : Evaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales - ULR 2694
Ferré, Sébastien [Auteur]
Semantics, Logics, Information Systems for Data-User Interaction [ SemLIS]
Audeh, Bissan [Auteur]
Laboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et Ingénierie des Connaissances en e-Santé [LIMICS]
Bobed, Carlos [Auteur]
Universidad de Zaragoza = University of Zaragoza [Saragossa University] = Université de Saragosse
Lillo-Le Louët, Agnès [Auteur]
Centre Régional de Pharmacovigilance [CRPV]
Lamy, Jean-Baptiste [Auteur]
Laboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et Ingénierie des Connaissances en e-Santé [LIMICS]
Bousquet, Cédric [Auteur]
Laboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et Ingénierie des Connaissances en e-Santé [LIMICS]

Titre de la revue :

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Nom court de la revue :

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

Numéro :

20

Pagination :

261

Date de publication :

2020-10-09

ISSN :

1472-6947

Mot(s)-clé(s) en anglais :

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Humans
Pharmacovigilance
Specialization
Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine
Cognitive walkthrough
Formative evaluation
MedDRA
Pharmacovigilance
Usability testing

Discipline(s) HAL :

Sciences du Vivant [q-bio]

Résumé en anglais : [en]

Medical terminologies are commonly used in medicine. For instance, to answer a pharmacovigilance question, pharmacovigilance specialists (PVS) search in a pharmacovigilance database for reports in relation to a given drug. ...
Lire la suite >Medical terminologies are commonly used in medicine. For instance, to answer a pharmacovigilance question, pharmacovigilance specialists (PVS) search in a pharmacovigilance database for reports in relation to a given drug. To do that, they first need to identify all MedDRA terms that might have been used to code an adverse reaction in the database, but terms may be numerous and difficult to select as they may belong to different parts of the hierarchy. In previous studies, three tools have been developed to help PVS identify and group all relevant MedDRA terms using three different approaches: forms, structured query-builder, and icons. Yet, a poor usability of the tools may increase PVS' workload and reduce their performance. This study aims to evaluate, compare and improve the three tools during two rounds of formative usability evaluation. First, a cognitive walkthrough was performed. Based on the design recommendations obtained from this evaluation, designers made modifications to their tools to improve usability. Once this re-engineering phase completed, six PVS took part in a usability test: difficulties, errors and verbalizations during their interaction with the three tools were collected. Their satisfaction was measured through the System Usability Scale. The design recommendations issued from the tests were used to adapt the tools. All tools had usability problems related to the lack of guidance in the graphical user interface (e.g., unintuitive labels). In two tools, the use of the SNOMED CT to find MedDRA terms hampered their use because French PVS were not used to it. For the most obvious and common terms, the icons-based interface would appear to be more useful. For the less frequently used MedDRA terms or those distributed in different parts of the hierarchy, the structured query-builder would be preferable thanks to its great power and flexibility. The form-based tool seems to be a compromise. These evaluations made it possible to identify the strengths of each tool but also their weaknesses to address them before further evaluation. Next step is to assess the acceptability of tools and the expressiveness of their results to help identify and group MedDRA terms.Lire moins >

Langue :

Anglais

Comité de lecture :

Oui

Audience :

Internationale

Vulgarisation :

Non

Établissement(s) :

Université de Lille
CHU Lille

Collections :

• METRICS : Evaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales - ULR 2694

Date de dépôt :

2021-07-09T14:37:13Z
2021-07-12T08:04:16Z