Advertisement

A Comparative Usability Study of a Commercially Acquired and a Locally Developed Prototype of a Newborn Hearing Screening Device

Conference paper
  • 630 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 779)

Abstract

With present laws requiring all newborns in the Philippines to be screened for hearing loss, an affordable biomedical device is being developed locally to increase the rates of newborn hearing screening that will lead to possible early treatment. The main objective of this study was to determine whether the hearing screening device prototype was usable for a Filipino screener. The study was executed through user testing of the prototype and a commercially acquired hearing screening device, followed by post-test interviews of the participants. The effectiveness and satisfaction of the users between the two devices were compared. Findings of the study suggested that several modifications must be made on the current design of the prototype to improve its the usability.

Keywords

Comparative usability study Newborn hearing screening Device design 

References

  1. 1.
    Chiong, C., Ostrea Jr., E., Reyes, A., Gonzalo, E., Uy, M.E., Chan, A.: Correlation of hearing screening with developmental outcomes in infants over a 2-year period. Acta Otolaryngologica 127(19), 384–388 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang, J., Johnson, T., Patel, V., Paige, D., Kubose, T.: Using usability heuristics to evaluate patient safety of medical devices. J. Biomed. Inform. 36, 24 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wiklund, M., Kendler, J., Strochlic, A.: Usability Testing of Medical Devices. CRC Press, Florida (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Food, U.S., Administration, Drug: Applying Human Factors and Usability Engineering to Medical Devices. CDRH, Maryland (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ward, J.R., Clarkson, P.J.: An analysis of medical device-related errors: prevalence and possible solutions. J. Med. Eng. Technol. 28, 2–21 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faulkner, L.: Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 35(3), 379–383 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Onis, M., Onyango, A., Borghi, E., Siyam, A., Pinol, A.: World Health Organization Child and Growth Standards. WHO Press, France (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Georgsson, M., Staggers, N.: Quantifying usability: an evaluation of a diabetes mhealth system on effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction metrics with associated user characteristics. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 23(1), 5–11 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schnittker, R., Schemettow, M., Verhoeven, F., Schraagen, J.M.C.: Combining situated cognitive engineering with a novel testing method in a case study comparing two infusion interfaces. Appl. Ergonomics 55, 16–26 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garmer, K., Liljegren, E., Osvalder, A., Dahlman, S.: Application of usability testing to the development of medical equipment: usability testing of a frequently used infusion pump and a new user interface for an infusion pump developed with a human factors approach. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 29, 145–159 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walji, M., Kalenderian, E., Piotrowski, M., et al.: Are three methods better than one? A comparative assessment of usability evaluation methods in an EHR. Int. J. Med. Inform. 83, 361–367 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations ResearchUniversity of the Philippines DilimanQuezon CityPhilippines

Personalised recommendations