mICF research
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like1,060 views
This document presents the methodology for evaluating a minimum viable product (MVP) mobile application of the International Classification of Functioning (ICF) through multi-site user testing. The evaluation will assess usability, validity of functioning descriptions, and technology acceptance at test sites in multiple countries. Small groups of 30 users and 2-4 providers will provide feedback over 5 iterations to inform rapid app updates. Both formative and summative evaluations will gather opinions on information quality, system quality, and service quality. The results will contribute to evidence on health and quality of life impacts and efficiency gains from using the ICF mobile solution.
![We present the methodology for a multi-site evaluation process of minimum viable
products to inform the development and dissemination of a patient-centred and patient-driven mobile
application that will facilitate the use of the ICF to improve care and management for people with
disabilities and chronic health conditions.
Abstract
Title
We demonstrate the methodology to
evaluate a minimum viable software
product (MVP) to facilitate the use of
the ICF by the population. This requires
careful assessment of needs and
usability before a product can be rolled
out to a larger group of users.
mICF work package 4
Market research methodology to
evaluate the development of a
mobile application of the ICF
17-23 October 2015
Manchester
United Kingdom
Poster Number: 000
WHO - FAMILY OF INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS NETWORK ANNUAL MEETING 2015
Kraus de Camargo O1, Snyman S2, Anttila H3, Maribo T4, Martins A5, Weckström P6, Wagener D7, Masson C7,
Paltamaa J6, on behalf of the International mICF partnership
1McMaster University, Canada; 2Stellenbosch University, South Africa; 3National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland; 4Marselisborg
Centre, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Denmark; 5ESTeSC Coimbra Health School, Portugal; 6JAMK University of
Applied Sciences, Finland, 7Stone Three Venture Technology (Pty) Ltd, South Africa
Title
Methods & Materials
References
This work will occur in close
collaboration with both content
specification (WP2) and lean MVP
design (WP3) teams, which run as
parallel processes. This work package
addresses the question, if the
application is not only usable but also if
it describes the person’s level of
functioning in a valid way.
To inform the development team in a
timely fashion, the test sites will work
with relatively small user groups of
about 30 service users and 2 to 4
service providers. This allows for a
quick collection of relevant data,
feedback to the software designers and
rapid updating and bug fixing. Each
iteration of the product will be tested in
a new group of users without previous
exposure to the application. This allows
for capturing relevant data from first-
time users and avoids a masking effect
of potential issues through learning
from subsequent exposures. The
captured results will then be sent back
to the content (WP2) and software
design (WP3) working groups. It is
estimated that in a period of 6 months,
5 iterations can be concluded in each
testing site (see table for testing sites).
Evaluations will be conducted in
different parts of the world focusing
specifically on 3 important and
interrelated aspects: information
quality, system quality and service
quality that will be measured
separately.1 Both formative and
summative evaluations will be used to
gather opinions of service user and
service provider groups to enhance
further development and
dissemination. Their opinions are
important in the further development
and dissemination of the mICF.2
1) DeLone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean
Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-
Year Update. J Manag Inf Syst. 2003;19(4):9–30.
2) Ammenwerth E, Duftschmid G, Gall W, Hackl WO,
Hoerbst A, Janzek-Hawlat S, et al. A nationwide
computerized patient medication history:
Evaluation of the Austrian pilot project “e-
Medikation.” Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(9):655–
69.
3) Holden RJ, Karsh B-T. The technology acceptance
model: its past and its future in health care. J
Biomed Inform [Internet]. Elsevier Inc.;
2010;43(1):159–72. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002
4) Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of
Use, and User Acceptance of lnformation
Technology. MIS Q [Internet]. 1989;13(3):319–
40. Available from:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0276-
7783(198909)13:3<319:PUPEOU>2.0.CO;2-E
5) Abdekhoda M, Ahmadi M, Dehnad a, Hosseini a F.
Information technology acceptance in health
information management. Methods Inf Med.
2014;53(1):14–20.
6) Schulz R, Wahl H-W, Matthews JT, De Vito Dabbs
A, Beach SR, Czaja SJ. Advancing the Aging and
Technology Agenda in Gerontology. Gerontologist.
2014 Aug;[Epub ahead of print].
The evaluation results will contribute to
a strengthened evidence base on
health outcomes, quality of life and
care efficiency gains from the use of
the ICT (mICF solution) in integrated
service provision. This will reinforce
knowledge with respect to
management of co-morbidities.
Countries Partners
Finland THL, North Karelia District, Barona Hoiva Oy, JAMK & PT centre (low back
pain), JAMK & Onerva Centre for Learning and Consulting
Denmark MC & Spine Centre
Portugal ESTeSC – Coimbra Health School
Italy AAS2 (adults), FINCB (children)
Germany MSH & Early Intervention Centres
South Africa SU – Rural sites: Cape Winelands Health Districts, Ukwanda Rural Clinical
School
SU – Urban sites: Developmental and Community-based healthcare centres
Canada MCM Children’s Hospital, ASD Services
Brazil CIF & Functional Health Centres from Municipality of Barueri
India DFI and Community Health Settings (elderly)
Korea Silla University Hospital (low back pain)
E
Introduction
ConclusionsThe aim of the tool is to assess how
users’ are interacting with mICF
(users per country, frequency of
contacts with different service
providers, costs and net benefits).
The technology acceptance model
(TAM) will be used for measuring
use/intention to use and user
satisfaction.3 TAM evaluates:
• The perceived usefulness:
“People tend to use or not use an
application to the extent they believe it
will help perform their job better”.
Perceived ease of use refers to "the
degree to which a person believes that
using a particular system would be free
of effort“.4,5 To guarantee the
validation of the results, the evaluation
will use data triangulation with regard
to time, space, or persons, investigator
triangulation, theory triangulation, and
methods triangulation.2
• Acceptance and use of IT:
information technology:
We will also assess by whom and why
technology is adopted and/or
abandoned. As we strive to hit the
“sweet spot” of maximizing well-being
and functioning through technology
without undermining the future
performance potential of the individual
we will also assess the potential
negative outcomes. The harmful
effects could be e.g. compromising
autonomy and independence and by
promoting a false sense of security.6 @ICFmobile](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/micfposter5olafmicfresearchssedit-151017110531-lva1-app6892/85/mICF-research-1-320.jpg)
mICF research
- 1. We present the methodology for a multi-site evaluation process of minimum viable products to inform the development and dissemination of a patient-centred and patient-driven mobile application that will facilitate the use of the ICF to improve care and management for people with disabilities and chronic health conditions. Abstract Title We demonstrate the methodology to evaluate a minimum viable software product (MVP) to facilitate the use of the ICF by the population. This requires careful assessment of needs and usability before a product can be rolled out to a larger group of users. mICF work package 4 Market research methodology to evaluate the development of a mobile application of the ICF 17-23 October 2015 Manchester United Kingdom Poster Number: 000 WHO - FAMILY OF INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS NETWORK ANNUAL MEETING 2015 Kraus de Camargo O1, Snyman S2, Anttila H3, Maribo T4, Martins A5, Weckström P6, Wagener D7, Masson C7, Paltamaa J6, on behalf of the International mICF partnership 1McMaster University, Canada; 2Stellenbosch University, South Africa; 3National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland; 4Marselisborg Centre, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Denmark; 5ESTeSC Coimbra Health School, Portugal; 6JAMK University of Applied Sciences, Finland, 7Stone Three Venture Technology (Pty) Ltd, South Africa Title Methods & Materials References This work will occur in close collaboration with both content specification (WP2) and lean MVP design (WP3) teams, which run as parallel processes. This work package addresses the question, if the application is not only usable but also if it describes the person’s level of functioning in a valid way. To inform the development team in a timely fashion, the test sites will work with relatively small user groups of about 30 service users and 2 to 4 service providers. This allows for a quick collection of relevant data, feedback to the software designers and rapid updating and bug fixing. Each iteration of the product will be tested in a new group of users without previous exposure to the application. This allows for capturing relevant data from first- time users and avoids a masking effect of potential issues through learning from subsequent exposures. The captured results will then be sent back to the content (WP2) and software design (WP3) working groups. It is estimated that in a period of 6 months, 5 iterations can be concluded in each testing site (see table for testing sites). Evaluations will be conducted in different parts of the world focusing specifically on 3 important and interrelated aspects: information quality, system quality and service quality that will be measured separately.1 Both formative and summative evaluations will be used to gather opinions of service user and service provider groups to enhance further development and dissemination. Their opinions are important in the further development and dissemination of the mICF.2 1) DeLone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten- Year Update. J Manag Inf Syst. 2003;19(4):9–30. 2) Ammenwerth E, Duftschmid G, Gall W, Hackl WO, Hoerbst A, Janzek-Hawlat S, et al. A nationwide computerized patient medication history: Evaluation of the Austrian pilot project “e- Medikation.” Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(9):655– 69. 3) Holden RJ, Karsh B-T. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform [Internet]. Elsevier Inc.; 2010;43(1):159–72. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002 4) Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of lnformation Technology. MIS Q [Internet]. 1989;13(3):319– 40. Available from: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0276- 7783(198909)13:3<319:PUPEOU>2.0.CO;2-E 5) Abdekhoda M, Ahmadi M, Dehnad a, Hosseini a F. Information technology acceptance in health information management. Methods Inf Med. 2014;53(1):14–20. 6) Schulz R, Wahl H-W, Matthews JT, De Vito Dabbs A, Beach SR, Czaja SJ. Advancing the Aging and Technology Agenda in Gerontology. Gerontologist. 2014 Aug;[Epub ahead of print]. The evaluation results will contribute to a strengthened evidence base on health outcomes, quality of life and care efficiency gains from the use of the ICT (mICF solution) in integrated service provision. This will reinforce knowledge with respect to management of co-morbidities. Countries Partners Finland THL, North Karelia District, Barona Hoiva Oy, JAMK & PT centre (low back pain), JAMK & Onerva Centre for Learning and Consulting Denmark MC & Spine Centre Portugal ESTeSC – Coimbra Health School Italy AAS2 (adults), FINCB (children) Germany MSH & Early Intervention Centres South Africa SU – Rural sites: Cape Winelands Health Districts, Ukwanda Rural Clinical School SU – Urban sites: Developmental and Community-based healthcare centres Canada MCM Children’s Hospital, ASD Services Brazil CIF & Functional Health Centres from Municipality of Barueri India DFI and Community Health Settings (elderly) Korea Silla University Hospital (low back pain) E Introduction ConclusionsThe aim of the tool is to assess how users’ are interacting with mICF (users per country, frequency of contacts with different service providers, costs and net benefits). The technology acceptance model (TAM) will be used for measuring use/intention to use and user satisfaction.3 TAM evaluates: • The perceived usefulness: “People tend to use or not use an application to the extent they believe it will help perform their job better”. Perceived ease of use refers to "the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort“.4,5 To guarantee the validation of the results, the evaluation will use data triangulation with regard to time, space, or persons, investigator triangulation, theory triangulation, and methods triangulation.2 • Acceptance and use of IT: information technology: We will also assess by whom and why technology is adopted and/or abandoned. As we strive to hit the “sweet spot” of maximizing well-being and functioning through technology without undermining the future performance potential of the individual we will also assess the potential negative outcomes. The harmful effects could be e.g. compromising autonomy and independence and by promoting a false sense of security.6 @ICFmobile