Open AccessThe iPrevent Online Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk Management Tool: Usability and Acceptability Testing
Author(s) -
Louisa L. Lo,
Ian M. Collins,
Mathias Bressel,
Phyllis Butow,
Jon Emery,
Louise Keogh,
Prue Weideman,
Emma Steel,
John L. Hopper,
Alison H. Trainer,
G. Bruce Mann,
Adrian Bickerstaffe,
Antonis C. Antoniou,
Jack Cuzick,
Kelly Anne Phillips
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
jmir formative research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2561-326X
DOI - 10.2196/formative.9935
Subject(s) - usability , worry , risk perception , medicine , anxiety , breast cancer , system usability scale , descriptive statistics , family medicine , cancer , perception , psychology , heuristic evaluation , psychiatry , human–computer interaction , statistics , mathematics , neuroscience , computer science
Background iPrevent estimates breast cancer (BC) risk and provides tailored risk management information. Objective The objective of this study was to assess the usability and acceptability of the iPrevent prototype. Methods Clinicians were eligible for participation in the study if they worked in primary care, breast surgery, or genetics clinics. Female patients aged 18-70 years with no personal cancer history were eligible. Clinicians were first familiarized with iPrevent using hypothetical paper-based cases and then actor scenarios; subsequently, they used iPrevent with their patients. Clinicians and patients completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and an Acceptability questionnaire 2 weeks after using iPrevent; patients also completed measures of BC worry, anxiety, risk perception, and knowledge pre- and 2 weeks post-iPrevent. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results The SUS and Acceptability questionnaires were completed by 19 of 20 clinicians and 37 of 43 patients. Usability was above average (SUS score >68) for 68% (13/19) clinicians and 76% (28/37) patients. The amount of information provided by iPrevent was reported as “about right” by 89% (17/19) clinicians and 89% (33/37) patients and 95% (18/19) and 97% (36/37), respectively, would recommend iPrevent to others, although 53% (10/19) clinicians and 27% (10/37) patients found it too long. Exploratory analyses suggested that iPrevent could improve risk perception, decrease frequency of BC worry, and enhance BC prevention knowledge without changing state anxiety. Conclusions The iPrevent prototype demonstrated good usability and acceptability. Because concerns about length could be an implementation barrier, data entry has been abbreviated in the publicly available version of iPrevent.