ArticleBMC pediatrics2026
Usability testing of two co-designed discharge communication tools for use in pediatric emergency departments: findings from the EDUCATE study.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDischarge communication is a key component of high-quality care. This practice is important in the pediatric emergency department (PED), where patients and families often leave without fully understanding important information shared during their visit. Co-designed discharge communication interventions may enhance information exchange in PEDs. The aim of this study was to assess the usability of two discharge communication tools, co-designed with youth, parents, and PED clinicians, for asthma or concussion presentations.
methodsThis was a mixed methods study with a concurrent validating quantitative triangulation design. Youth, parents, and clinicians recruited from two Canadian PEDs completed usability tests for either an asthma or concussion co-designed discharge communication intervention. Usability Testing Round 1 was remote, where participants provided quantitative and qualitative feedback on tool functionality. Feedback from Round 1 informed the revised tools for Round 2 testing. Remote Usability Testing Round 2 was self-administered by a new group of participants who provided feedback on user experience and satisfaction with the tool by completing 5-point Likert scale questions and open-text fields. Round 1 data were analyzed using the severity of usability problems (SUP) scoring. Quantitative data from Rounds 1 and 2 were analyzed descriptively. Deductive content analysis was applied to qualitative data from Rounds 1 and 2. One reviewer coded participant feedback and a second reviewer verified categories.
resultsRound 1 (n = 14) revealed primarily cosmetic and minor usability issues for each tool. Revised tools were used in Usability Testing Round 2 (n = 40), which identified additional, minor revisions to each tool. A key suggestion was offering the tools in multiple languages and formats to ensure they met the diverse needs of patients and families presenting to the PED. Site 1 participants consistently scored the tools more helpful or useful compared to Site 2.
conclusionsThrough two rounds of comprehensive usability testing, we refined each tool to meet the needs of youth, parents and PED clinicians. Enhanced recruitment strategies are needed to reach youth and diverse populations to ensure future tools meet a range of information needs during PED discharge.
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.