Research & Presentations
Figure 1 Comparison of usability outcomes in both tools. Technical Efficiency
Effectiveness
250
5
200
3
150
2
100
0
4 3.5 3
PaperBased
1
APP
PaperBased
APP
Rating
50
4.5
Errors
Time (s)
4
Figure 2 Comparison of acceptability rankings. Note: Lower scores for the “confusing” domain is more desirable.
2.5 2
0
1.5 1
1
Rehabilitation publication. Once the decision tree content was established, a cross-platform mobile app was developed with an interface accessible to all age groups. After beta testing the app for functionality, the next phase was to assess usability and acceptability. A total of 30 participants, all lower-limb prosthesis wearers, performed six trials of stepmatched navigation on the app and the paper versions of the decision trees. Usability was measured by two criteria: technical effectiveness (number of errors made while navigating the tool) and efficacy (amount of time spent navigating). Acceptability was determined through Likert-like questions and a semistructured interview.
Results The mobile app was found to be significantly more usable and acceptable when compared to the paper-based decision trees. When using the app to navigate the scenarios, there were fewer errors committed and less time to complete the navigation (see Figure 1). While both tools were found to be highly acceptable, the mobile app version was found to be easier to use, to be less confusing to navigate, and to have a higher overall user experience (see Figure 2).
0.5 0
PB
APP Ease of use
PB
APP
Confusing Acceptability Domains
PB
APP Overall
PB: paper-‐based; APP: mobile application Figure 2. Comparison of acceptability rankings. Note: Lower scores for the “confusing” domain is more desirable.
Qualitative analysis of the semistructured interviews resulted in three themes: 1) The paper-based decision trees were organized. 2) The paper-based decision trees were difficult to navigate. 3) The mobile app was simple to use and navigate.
Significance Obtaining and maintaining a comfortable fit of the prosthesis is a priority of the prosthetist; however, despite best educational interventions, the client may experience issues that require problem solving outside of the clinic. The mobile app is an easy-to-navigate interface for a prosthesis wearer to employ in problem-solving fit issues while being directed to his or her prosthetist in the event a comfortable fit is not achieved. This article is a summary of a manuscript that will be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Prosthetics & Orthotics under the title,
“Self-Management Problem-Solving Tools for Lower-Limb Prosthesis Wearers: Evaluating Technical Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Acceptability.” The study was funded by the University of Hartford’s College of Education, Nursing, and Health Professions. Daniel J. Lee, PT, DPT, GCS, is a board-certified clinical specialist in geriatrics through the American Board of Physical Therapy Specialties. He is an assistant professor at the University of Hartford in the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, where he is dual appointed to both the Doctor of Physical Therapy and Masters of Prosthetics and Orthotics programs. Lee may be contacted at danilee@hartford.edu.
Reference 1. Daniel JL, Veneri DA. Development and Acceptability Testing of Decision Trees for Self-Management of Prosthetic Socket Fit in Adults With Lower-Limb Amputation. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2018; 40(9):1066-1071. DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1286694
O&P News | September/October 2018
21
