English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We compare the effectiveness of two types of verbal protocol, concurrent think aloud vs. retrospective sense making, for evaluating the usability of a clinical decision support tool. Thirty-five medical and nursing students participated in a usability experiment. Participants were asked to complete seven tasks using the system under evaluation. Eighteen students were allocated to the concurrent think aloud group and the remainder followed the retrospective protocol. The retrospective protocol was significantly more sensitive than the concurrent protocol in recording unique usability problems related to users' cognitive behaviour. These problems concerned the interpretation and comprehension of statistical output, search results and system messages. These findings can be explained by the retrospective protocol's greater ability to detect compound usability problems, capturing the cognitive dimensions of users' interactions with the interface in greater depth. Evaluations of clinical decision support systems should take an evidence-based approach to selecting protocols.

Verbal protocols for assessing the usability of clinical decision support: The retrospective sense making protocol