ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Patients' Experienced Usability and Satisfaction With Digital Health Solutions in a Home Setting: Instrument Validation Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multidimensional Digital Health Platform to Support Intrinsic Capacity and Healthy Aging: Pilot Feasibility Study.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Unlocking AI Chatbot Potential in Healthcare: Trust-Enhanced DeLone & McLean IS Success Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Towards personalised follow-up care in ovarian cancer using online remote PROMs monitoring: a study protocol of a feasibility trial.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Patients' Usability Experience With a Postoperative Follow-Up Web Application.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The field of digital health solutions (DHS) has grown tremendously over the past years. DHS include tools for self-management, which support individuals to take charge of their own health. The usability of DHS, as experienced by patients, is pivotal to adoption. However, well-known questionnaires that evaluate usability and satisfaction use complex terminology derived from human-computer interaction and are therefore not well suited to assess experienced usability of patients using DHS in a home setting. Objective: This study aimed to develop, validate, and assess an instrument that measures experienced usability and satisfaction of patients using DHS in a home setting. Methods: The development of the "Experienced Usability and Satisfaction with Self-monitoring in the Home Setting" (GEMS) questionnaire followed several steps. Step I consisted of assessing the content validity, by conducting a literature review on current usability and satisfaction questionnaires, collecting statements and discussing these in an expert meeting, and translating each statement and adjusting it to the language level of the general population. This phase resulted in a draft version of the GEMS. Step II comprised assessing its face validity by pilot testing with Amsterdam University Medical Center's patient panel. In step III, psychometric analysis was conducted and the GEMS was assessed for reliability. Results: A total of 14 items were included for psychometric analysis and resulted in 4 reliable scales: convenience of use, perceived value, efficiency of use, and satisfaction. Conclusions: Overall, the GEMS questionnaire demonstrated its reliability and validity in assessing experienced usability and satisfaction of DHS in a home setting. Further refinement of the instrument is necessary to confirm its applicability in other patient populations in order to promote the development of a steering mechanism that can be applied longitudinally throughout implementation, and can be used as a benchmarking instrument.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.