Mobile App Support for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Development and Usability Study.
ALS CPR algorithm
app evaluation
cardiopulmonary resuscitation
healthcare
mobile phone
public health
smartphone apps
the Kano model
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 01 2021
05 01 2021
Historique:
received:
03
09
2019
accepted:
14
12
2019
revised:
02
11
2019
entrez:
5
1
2021
pubmed:
6
1
2021
medline:
6
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The user requirements for in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) support apps are understudied. To study usability, functionality, and design based on user requirements, we applied a mixed methods research design using interviews, observations, and a Kano questionnaire to survey perspectives of both physicians and nurses. This study aims to identify what an in-hospital CPR support app should include to meet the requirements and expectations of health care professionals by evaluating the CprPrototype app. We used a mixed methods research design. The qualitative methods consisted of semistructured interviews and observations from an advanced life support (ALS) course; both provided input to the subsequent questionnaire development. The quantitative method is a questionnaire based on the Kano model classifying user requirements as must-be, one-dimensional (attributes causing satisfaction when present and dissatisfaction when absent), attractive, indifferent, and reverse (attributes causing dissatisfaction when present and satisfaction when absent). The questionnaire was supplemented with comment fields. All respondents were physicians and nurses providing ALS at hospitals in the Central Denmark Region. A total of 83 physicians and nurses responded to the questionnaire, 15 physicians and nurses were observed during ALS training, and 5 physicians were interviewed. On the basis of the Kano questionnaire, 53% (9/17) of requirements were classified as indifferent, 29% (5/17) as attractive, and 18% (3/17) as one-dimensional. The comments revealed 7 different categories of user requirements with noticeable differences between those of physicians and nurses: technological challenges, keep track of time, documentation and history, disturbing element, improvement areas: functions, improvement areas: design, and better guidance. The study provides recommendations to developers on the user requirements that need to be addressed when developing CPR support apps. Three features (one-dimensional attributes) must be incorporated in an in-hospital CPR support app: reminder of rhythm check, reminder of resuscitation drugs, and differentiate between adults and children. In addition, 5 features (attractive attributes) would result in higher user satisfaction: all functions on one side, access to the patient journal in the app, automatic time recording when cardiac arrest is called, sound to guide the chest compression rate (metronome), and send CPR history to the DANARREST(Danish in-hospital cardiac arrest registry) database.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The user requirements for in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) support apps are understudied. To study usability, functionality, and design based on user requirements, we applied a mixed methods research design using interviews, observations, and a Kano questionnaire to survey perspectives of both physicians and nurses.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to identify what an in-hospital CPR support app should include to meet the requirements and expectations of health care professionals by evaluating the CprPrototype app.
METHODS
We used a mixed methods research design. The qualitative methods consisted of semistructured interviews and observations from an advanced life support (ALS) course; both provided input to the subsequent questionnaire development. The quantitative method is a questionnaire based on the Kano model classifying user requirements as must-be, one-dimensional (attributes causing satisfaction when present and dissatisfaction when absent), attractive, indifferent, and reverse (attributes causing dissatisfaction when present and satisfaction when absent). The questionnaire was supplemented with comment fields. All respondents were physicians and nurses providing ALS at hospitals in the Central Denmark Region.
RESULTS
A total of 83 physicians and nurses responded to the questionnaire, 15 physicians and nurses were observed during ALS training, and 5 physicians were interviewed. On the basis of the Kano questionnaire, 53% (9/17) of requirements were classified as indifferent, 29% (5/17) as attractive, and 18% (3/17) as one-dimensional. The comments revealed 7 different categories of user requirements with noticeable differences between those of physicians and nurses: technological challenges, keep track of time, documentation and history, disturbing element, improvement areas: functions, improvement areas: design, and better guidance.
CONCLUSIONS
The study provides recommendations to developers on the user requirements that need to be addressed when developing CPR support apps. Three features (one-dimensional attributes) must be incorporated in an in-hospital CPR support app: reminder of rhythm check, reminder of resuscitation drugs, and differentiate between adults and children. In addition, 5 features (attractive attributes) would result in higher user satisfaction: all functions on one side, access to the patient journal in the app, automatic time recording when cardiac arrest is called, sound to guide the chest compression rate (metronome), and send CPR history to the DANARREST(Danish in-hospital cardiac arrest registry) database.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33399539
pii: v9i1e16114
doi: 10.2196/16114
pmc: PMC7815448
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e16114Informations de copyright
©Sune Dueholm Müller, Kasper Glerup Lauridsen, Amra Hadrovic Palic, Lotte Nygaard Frederiksen, Morten Mathiasen, Bo Løfgren. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 05.01.2021.
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Resuscitation. 2012 Jan;83(1):63-9
pubmed: 21963583
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Nov-Dec;16(6):792-801
pubmed: 19717793
Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 2006;19(6-7):500-15
pubmed: 17100220
Anaesthesia. 2011 Apr;66(4):255-62
pubmed: 21401537
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:6418710
pubmed: 27668257
Healthc Inform Res. 2016 Jul;22(3):156-63
pubmed: 27525156
P T. 2014 May;39(5):356-64
pubmed: 24883008
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Nov 06;6(11):e190
pubmed: 30401673
Resuscitation. 2015 Oct;95:100-47
pubmed: 26477701
Physiol Meas. 2006 Aug;27(8):R49-62
pubmed: 16772664
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Mar 19;16(3):e89
pubmed: 24647361
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Mar 27;6(3):e75
pubmed: 29588268
JAMA. 2019 Oct 4;:
pubmed: 31584609
Int J Qual Health Care. 2014 Feb;26(1):26-33
pubmed: 24257162
Int J Med Inform. 2007 Nov-Dec;76(11-12):790-800
pubmed: 17049917
Online J Public Health Inform. 2015 Jul 01;7(2):e218
pubmed: 26392848
Resuscitation. 2015 Apr;89:123-8
pubmed: 25617486