- Research article
- Open Access
- Open Peer Review
Usability testing of ANSWER: a web-based methotrexate decision aid for patients with rheumatoid arthritis
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Makingvolume 13, Article number: 131 (2013)
Decision aids are evidence-based tools designed to inform people of the potential benefit and harm of treatment options, clarify their preferences and provide a shared decision-making structure for discussion at a clinic visit. For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are considering methotrexate, we have developed a web-based patient decision aid called the ANSWER (Animated, Self-serve, Web-based Research Tool). This study aimed to: 1) assess the usability of the ANSWER prototype; 2) identify strengths and limitations of the ANSWER from the patient’s perspective.
The ANSWER prototype consisted of: 1) six animated patient stories and narrated information on the evidence of methotrexate for RA; 2) interactive questionnaires to clarify patients’ treatment preferences. Eligible participants for the usability test were patients with RA who had been prescribed methotrexate. They were asked to verbalize their thoughts (i.e., think aloud) while using the ANSWER, and to complete the System Usability Scale (SUS) to assess overall usability (range = 0-100; higher = more user friendly). Participants were audiotaped and observed, and field notes were taken. The testing continued until no new modifiable issues were found. We used descriptive statistics to summarize participant characteristics and the SUS scores. Content analysis was used to identified usability issues and navigation problems.
15 patients participated in the usability testing. The majority were aged 50 or over and were university/college graduates (n = 8, 53.4%). On average they took 56 minutes (SD = 34.8) to complete the tool. The mean SUS score was 81.2 (SD = 13.5). Content analysis of audiotapes and field notes revealed four categories of modifiable usability issues: 1) information delivery (i.e., clarity of the information and presentation style); 2) navigation control (i.e., difficulties in recognizing and using the navigation control buttons); 3) layout (i.e., position of the videos, text, diagrams and navigation buttons); 4) aesthetic (i.e., the colour, look and feel of the online tool).
Although the SUS score indicated high usability before and after major modification, findings from the think-aloud sessions illustrated areas that required further refinement. Our results highlight the importance of formative evaluation in usability testing.
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects about 1% of the population worldwide, with the peak onset between age 35 and 50 [1, 2]. There is ample evidence supporting early and persistent use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) to prevent irreversible joint damage [3–5]. Among the available DMARD, methotrexate is generally considered the first-line treatment for RA based on its benefits and potential side effects. However, a Canadian population-based research reported that only 43% of the population with RA had used a DMARD over a five-year period .
Patients’ decisions on medication use can be affected by their concerns about side effects . Several qualitative studies in chronic disease, including RA, have revealed patients’ ambivalence toward using medication [8, 9]. On one hand, they described an aversion to drugs because of the anticipated side effects and, on the other hand, they felt compelled to take medication due to a fear of the potentially crippling effects of an uncontrolled disease. The circumstance in which people decided to use or not use medications appeared to be influenced by the nature of the symptoms and the extent to which symptoms disrupt daily lives.
In recent years, clinical practice has been expanding from traditional authoritative models, in which physicians make treatment decisions for patients, to include shared decision-making. This involves an exchange of information to prepare patients to make treatment decisions and engage in the process of decision-making with their healthcare providers [10, 11]. One way to facilitate shared decision-making is through the use of patient decision aids . These are evidence-based tools designed to help individuals to choose between two or more treatment options [13, 14]. Decision aids help people to personalize information about treatment effectiveness, outcomes and the inherent uncertainties of potential benefit versus potential harm. An important feature of decision aids is that they help individuals to clarify their personal values towards benefits and harms, and to communicate this information to health professionals. Patients who have used decision aids tend to have more knowledge about the treatment, more realistic expectations and lower decisional conflict compared to those who received usual care . Also, decision aid users are more likely to participate in decision-making and to reach a treatment decision .
To assist patients with RA to make decisions about using methotrexate, we developed an online decision aid called ANSWER (Animated, Self-serve, Web-based Research Tool) . The innovative aspect of ANSWER is its built-in patient stories that illustrate common situations people experience when making decisions about their treatment, as well as attributes required for effective management of their healthcare. The primary objective of this study was to assess the user friendliness of the ANSWER prototype. Our secondary objective was to identify strengths and limitations of the tool from the user’s perspective. This study focuses on the refinement of the ANSWER prototype so that it could be deployed for use by the general public.
Decision aid development
Development of the ANSWER decision aid was guided by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards [17, 18]. Our target users were individuals who had been prescribed methotrexate for RA, but were feeling unsure about starting it. As methotrexate was usually prescribed at the early stage of RA, we designed the ANSWER with the needs of newly diagnosed patients in mind. This decision aid focused on two options: 1) to take methotrexate as prescribed; 2) to refuse methotrexate and talk to the doctor about other treatment options. The design of the ANSWER was guided by Jibaja-Weiss’s Edutainment Decision Aid Model . Educative entertainment, or edutainment, is a process whereby educational messages are imbedded within an entertaining medium, such as broadcasting media, e.g., television [20, 21] or performing arts (e.g., theatre) , and games [22–25]. Central to the Edutainment Decision Aid Model is the focus on making the computer-human interface user-friendly [19, 26]. We assembled a multidisciplinary team, involving patients/consumers, digital media experts, clinicians and health researchers, to develop the online tool. The role of patients/consumers was particularly important as they had firsthand experience in making treatment decisions. They informed the design of the ANSWER by sharing their experiences of using computers while having joint pain and fatigue. Further, they reviewed the content of the patient decision aid to ensure it is understandable by people without medical background, although no readability program was applied.
Figure 1 presents the navigation path of the ANSWER. Users were guided to start by completing the Information Module, the Value Clarification Module, and then the standardized health outcome measures. However, the tool also allowed users to access any component without following a linear path. The Information Module consisted of the latest evidence on methotrexate compared to placebo from a Cochrane systematic review  and the current evidence-based recommendations from the 3E (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative . The latter was a multinational collaboration involving 751 rheumatologists from 17 countries to develop recommendations for the use of methotrexate in RA using a Delphi process. The design of ANSWER was guided by our previous qualitative study on the help-seeking experience of patients with early RA , and input from the patient/consumer collaborators. The module addressed six topics: 1) About RA; 2) About methotrexate; 3) Side effects of methotrexate; 4) Pregnancy; 5) Alcohol use; 6) Other medication options and adjunctive treatments (e.g., exercise, joint protection techniques). Recognizing that patients had different preferences in receiving information, the information was provided in text, voice narration and animated vignettes.
Each of the six vignettes was based on a unique, fictional character (Figure 2: Sample Storyboard). We used the animated graphic novel approach for the animated component, which is a relatively simple, inexpensive and visually appealing method for creating the animation sequences. This involved repeatedly photographing real actors in key poses based on the story script, processing the images in Photoshop to create a comic-book-inspired look, and then sequencing the images to create a limited key-frame animation for the characters. This animation method also allows us to make modification to characters’ appearances, so that they appear to be ‘race neutral’ for a multinational audience in Canada. We used a slow animated sequence of 3–5 frames/10 seconds, which allowed us the freedom to emphasize the more important points in the story. Finally, actor voice-over was added to complete the animated vignettes.
In the Value Clarification Module, two methods were used to assist patients to consider the importance of the consequences from each option. First, they were asked to rate on a 5-point scale the importance of: 1) improving joint pain; 2) preventing joint damage; 3) improving physical function; 4) avoiding side effects; 5) becoming pregnant /starting a family; 6) drinking alcohol. This was followed by the second method, in which they indicated the relative importance by allocating 100 points across the same six items. Patients were also asked to list their questions and concerns about using methotrexate and to indicate their preferred choice out of the two options, or to declare that they remained uncertain.
The ANSWER tool ends with two standardized health status questionnaires: the Health Assessment Questionnaire  and the RA Disease Activity Index [31, 32]. Scores of these measures and the individual’s response to the value clarification questions were summarized in a 1-page printable report at the end of the online program. Patients could discuss this report with their physicians before reaching a final decision about using methotrexate. The ANSWER prototype was reviewed by the research team, patients/consumers (OK, CK, CM) and a health education consultant (GE) to ensure that the content was understandable to people without a research or clinical background.
Guided by the methods outlined by Rubin and Chisnell , we used an iterative testing protocol, whereby we 1) conducted onsite testing with participants to identify usability issues in the ANSWER prototype, 2) stopped testing and made modifications when no new issues were identified, and 3) resumed testing with the modified version. A usability issue was defined as 1) when a participant was not able to advance to the next step due to the decision aid design or a programming error, or 2) when a participant was distracted by a particular design or content of the online tool. Prior to the testing, we recognized that some usability issues would not be modifiable. For example, because the animated stories were in their final format, we were unable to change the animation style or the storylines. We continued the testing until no modifiable usability issues were identified.
Participants were recruited through study flyers posted at 1) rheumatologists’ offices and community health centres in Vancouver, 2) Mary Pack Arthritis Program, Vancouver General Hospital and 3) classified advertisement websites such as Craigslist and Kijiji. Eligible individuals were patients who had a diagnosis of RA and had been prescribed methotrexate. After providing written informed consent, participants attended a two-hour testing session at the Arthritis Research Centre of Canada. The test was conducted in a small meeting room in the presence of a trained research staff member. Participants were instructed to use the ANSWER as if they were looking for information about methotrexate for RA. We used the concurrent think-aloud approach. The think-aloud protocol was developed in its current form by Ericsson and Simon , and was introduced to the field of human-computer interaction by Lewis . Participants were encouraged to verbalize thoughts and feelings when navigating the decision aid. The research staff prompted the participant to elaborate on his/her comments when appropriate or when they fell silent for a while. For example, participants were asked, “What are you thinking?” or “Can you describe what are looking at”, if they fell silent. In addition, the research staff intervened when participants indicated they did not know how to progress to the next stage while using the ANSWER. All sessions were audio-recorded. To capture situations which might be missed by the audio recording, the research staff took detailed field notes throughout the session.
Participants were then asked to complete a questionnaire including the System Usability Scale (SUS)  and socio-demographic and internet use characteristics. Developed by Brooke , the SUS consists of 10 statements that are scored on a 5-point scale of strength of agreement. The total ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating more user-friendly. Originally developed to measured system usability, the SUS has been adapted for testing a wide range of technologies, including hardware platforms and software programs .
We used descriptive statistics to summarize participant characteristics and the SUS score after each testing cycle. No statistical comparisons were conducted between cycles, as hypothesis testing was not a goal of this study. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was conducted to identify 1) modifiable usability issues and navigation problems, and 2) strength and limitation of the ANSWER design. Our data analysis was inductive, as we sought to understand participants’ experience with the ANSWER rather than to prove a preconceived theory. We used a constant comparisons approach, whereby participants’ experiences in using the ANSWER were coded. Codes that reveal similar navigation problems were grouped into categories . The data were constantly revisited after the initial coding, until it was clear no new categories emerged. The coding process was performed by one researcher (LCL) who read each transcript and attributed a code to sentences or paragraphs (open coding). Other team members were also included in the coding process to assess causes of usability problems from participants’ comments. Axial coding was performed to develop connections among the categories of usability problems. LCL was also responsible for discussing the modifications required with the software programmer, and supervised the revisions. We stopped a testing cycle to make modifications when no new problem was identified. The study protocol was approved by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (Application number: H09-00898).
We recruited 15 eligible participants between August and October 2010. Of those, 10 participated in Cycle 1 and five tested the revised version in Cycle 2 (Table 1). We did not identify any new issues in Cycle 2. Over half of the participants were aged 50 or older, with 85.7% being women and 53.3% being university or college graduates. The median disease duration was 5 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.83; 10.00), with participants in Cycle 1 having a longer median disease duration (5.50 years [IQR: 0.65; 11:00] versus 2 years [IRQ: 0.92; 15.50]). All participants have used methotrexate. They all used the internet for emails and 46.7% used it to play internet games. Participants took an average of 56.80 minutes (SD = 34.80) to complete the ANSWER. Table 2 presents the total SUS score and the results of individual items in Cycles 1 and 2. The SUS scores were similar before and after modification of the online tool (Cycle 1: 81.25, SD = 14.92; Cycle 2: 81.00, SD = 11.81).
Modifiable usability issues and changes made
Four categories of modifiable usability issues were identified during Cycle 1 (Table 3, with examples of participants’ comments). These include 1) Information Delivery, 2) Navigation Control, 3) Layout, and 4) Aesthetic. Figure 3 presents the screenshots of the ANSWER homepage before and after modification.
All participants commented on the length of the ANSWER tool. The original version included details of benefits and risks of methotrexate with each video lasting 6–8 minutes long. During the testing, participants commented on the repetitiveness of the information and the video length. In light of these comments, we added short key messages throughout the online tool, reduced the video length, and included subtitles in the videos to highlight important points. It should be noted that the videos were shortened by condensing the storyline, not the evidence. The rheumatologist investigators in this team (Lacaille, Tugwell) had ensured that the change did not compromise the presentation of evidence.
Participants found it difficult to use the control buttons to access the narrated content, adjust volume and control the videos. In the original version, we created our own navigation buttons for the ANSWER with the intent to achieve a unique look. This, however, became problematic during the usability testing. While some participants did not recognize these buttons, others did not know how to operate them. One participant commented that average internet users might be more comfortable with the YouTube navigation buttons and format (Bob, Table 3). Based on the feedback, we subsequently replaced the navigation controls with the YouTube format. Further, the button size was enlarged to increase ease of use for patients with hand pain.
In the original version, each webpage under the tab ‘Animated Stories’ started with the videos, followed by written summaries of the information. Participants found the format unfriendly to navigate, especially for people who preferred to watch the video and browse the text at the same time. One participant commented that this layout required a lot of scrolling up and down with a mouse, which was particularly difficult for people with RA as the hand joints were often affected (Jamie, Table 3). In the revised version, we further condensed the key messages to reduce scrolling with a mouse within a webpage. In addition, we added hyperlinks throughout the tool to improve access to the videos and written information.
A major criticism of the original ANSWER tool was its aesthetic. One participant commented that the colour was ‘flat and uninteresting’ (Theresa, Table 3). Another participant felt that it needed more colour to make the site ‘a little more fun’ and more inviting (Jamie). Based on the feedback, we included pictures in the introductory pages and throughout the Value Clarification Module. In addition, we added colourful screenshots from the animated stories in the Information Module.
Limitations and strengths of the ANSWER patient decision aid
Although some components of the ANSWER were not modifiable (e.g., storylines of the animated videos), we acknowledged participants’ comments regarding limitations of this online tool. Four additional themes related to limitations and strengths of the ANSWER emerged in our analysis. These included 1) authenticity, 2) information accuracy about living with arthritis, 3) modeling shared decision making, and 4) ease of use (Table 4).
In general, participants from both cycles were able to relate to the characters in one or more patient stories, although some preferred the stories told by real actors or patients rather than animated characters. Also, they felt that the pros and cons about using methotrexate were well integrated in the context of everyday life of people with RA. For example, one participant remarked positively about the realistic depiction of fatigue in the stories (Jamie, Table 4). Participants also commented that the patient stories were helpful because the main characters demonstrated shared decision-making behaviours, such as considering pros and cons of treatment options and communicating questions and concerns with health professionals. Finally, although participants felt in general that the ANSWER was user-friendly, some criticised the videos as less polished compared to other existing patient education programs that used real patients or actors (Table 4).
In this study, we employed rigorous methodology to assess the usability of a new online decision aid for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Our results showed that the ANSWER prototype was user-friendly even before modifications were made (overall SUS score before modification: 81.25, SD = 14.92; after modification: 81.00, SD = 11.81). Component scores of the two cycles appeared to be similar, although the small sample size hindered the opportunity for hypothesis testing. There is no consensus on what constitutes an acceptable SUS score , however Bangor et al.  reviewed the measurement properties of the SUS and suggested that products with SUS scores between the high 70s and 80s were considered ‘good products’. Programs scoring below 70 required further improvement and those in the low 70s were considered ‘passable’. Products scoring 90 and above were deemed ‘superior’. Based on their recommendation, the ANSWER has met the standard of a user friendly program. It should be noted that we designed the ANSWER for patients to use at their own pace. Although participants were asked to complete the ANSWER in one testing session, we expect that in reality some might complete the online tool in several sessions.
It was expected the usability of a new product could be improved by addressing issues identified during the usability testing and that this might translate into an improved SUS. What was interesting in this study was that although the SUS score was high and met the standard as a good product in Round 1, the formative evaluation identified a number of modifiable usability issues. This supports the use of the formative evaluation along with the summative evaluation in usability testing. The small change in the SUS score between Round 1 and Round 2 might be due to the non-modifiable issues, including those raised about the videos. However, given the small sample size in each round, a direct comparison would not be possible.
Our study also demonstrated the value of formative usability testing. Despite the favourable SUS scores in Cycle 1, participants identified a number of usability issues. Our findings were similar to the usability issues found in other patient-oriented online programs. For example, Stinson et al.  tested an electronic chronic pain diary for adolescents with arthritis and found the slider controls of pain visual analogue scales difficult to operate. These slider controls were subsequently modified to improve user experience. In another study evaluating an online self-management program for youth with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, Stinson et al.  uncovered performance errors and design issues that were modifiable to improve user satisfaction. Recently, in a full scale usability evaluation of an online interactive game for patients making treatment decisions for prostate cancer, Reichlin et al.  identified similar navigation and content-related issues that could impede user experiences. These studies indicated the importance of formative usability testing to improve new online programs prior to field testing. Findings from the current usability testing concur with this viewpoint.
There are several limitations with this study. First, the testing was conducted with participants with a long disease duration (median = 5 years), hence the view of those with a recent diagnosis was under represented. Second, since only two out of 15 participants were men, our findings might not reflect the full range of user experience of men. Third, most participants were educated and computer-savvy; hence the results may not be generalizable to people who are less educated or computer-savvy. Future studies including these populations will be important as they may be in greater need of learning about options, risks and benefits, and exploring their own preferences and engaging in shared decision-making. Fourth, we were unable to address all usability issues identified by participants since some components were already finalized at the time of the testing (e.g., the animated videos). Our choice of animation style was based on a balance between aesthetic and budgetary constraints. Although some participants responded positively to the animated graphic novel approach, others considered it lacking sophistication. Finally, due to the small sample size, we were unable to further explore the influence of demographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex, education level), disease characteristics (e.g., disease duration and severity) and individuals’ internet use (e.g., time spent on internet per day) on the usability scores. This is important because some of the preferences (e.g., animations) may be associated with specific patient characteristics, which if known, would assist in designing future decision aids targeted to particular populations.
Despite the limitations, findings from the usability testing have allowed us to refine the ANSWER prototype. Recognizing that usability issues are major barriers to the adoption of health information technology , we have taken steps to address them over the course of the ANSWER’s development. Yen and Bakken recommend three levels of usability evaluation . The first level aims to identify product components and functions needed by users to accomplish a task (i.e., user-task interaction). Methodology includes direct observation and needs assessment using qualitative or survey methodology. The second level assesses the user-task-program interaction using methods such as heuristic evaluation , cognitive walkthrough , and the think aloud technique [46, 47]. The third level examines the complex interaction among users, tasks, the program and the environment using a variety of experimental and observational designs. All three levels are addressed in the ANSWER development and were shown to be helpful for different aspects of refining the tool.
Strengths of the study include the emphasis on user experiences. The ANSWER tool was informed by our previous qualitative research on RA patients’ help-seeking experience, especially their challenges in making medication decisions . In addition, patient/consumer collaborators were involved at the outset to provide input on the program design. We subsequently evaluated the user-task-program interaction in the current usability testing and addressed all modifiable navigation issues. The next step will be to evaluate the ANSWER in a proof-of-concept field study with patients who are considering methotrexate for treating RA. In addition to using the tool online, individuals will be able print the one-page summary of their questions, concerns and preferred option to bring to their rheumatologist appointment. As such, they will have the full experience of shared decision-making. Our goal will be to assess the extent to which the ANSWER reduces decisional conflict and improves self-management knowledge and skills in patients who are considering methotrexate for RA .
We have developed a user-friendly online decision aid to assist patients in making informed decision about using methotrexate for RA. Although the SUS score indicated high usability before and after major modification, findings from the think-aloud sessions illustrated areas that required further refinement. Our results highlight the importance of formative evaluation in usability testing.
Engel A, Roberts J, Burch TA: Rheumatoid arthritis in adults. Vital Health Stat . 1966, 11: 1-43.
Spector TD: Rheumatoid arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 1990, 16: 513-537.
Hochberg MC: Early aggressive DMARD therapy: the key to slowing disease progression in rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. 1999, 112: 3-7.
Quinn MA, Conaghan PG, Emery P: The therapeutic approach of early intervention for rheumatoid arthritis: what is the evidence?. Rheumatology. 2001, 40: 1211-1220. 10.1093/rheumatology/40.11.1211.
Nell VP, Machold KP, Eberl G, Stamm TA, Uffmann M, Smolen JS: Benefit of very early referral and very early therapy with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology. 2004, 43: 906-914. 10.1093/rheumatology/keh199.
Lacaille D, Anis AH, Guh DP, Esdaile JM: Gaps in care for rheumatoid arthritis: a population study. Arthritis Rheum. 2005, 53: 241-248. 10.1002/art.21077.
Lacaille D, Rogers P: Why are people with rheumatoid arthritis not using DMARDs? Understanding gaps in care. Arthritis Rheum. 2007, 56: S86-
Townsend A, Hunt K, Wyke S: Managing multiple morbidity in mid-life: a qualitative study of attitudes to drug use. BMJ. 2003, 327: 837-10.1136/bmj.327.7419.837.
Li LC, Townsend AF, Adam PM, Cox SM, Amarsi Z, Backman CL, et al: Crossing the threshold: Help-seeking for early symptoms in people with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2009, 60: S758-
Kjeken I, Dagfinrud H, Mowinckel P, Uhlig T, Kvien TK, Finset A: Rheumatology care: involvement in medical decisions, received information, satisfaction with care, and unmet health care needs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006, 55: 394-401. 10.1002/art.21985.
Weston WW: Informed and shared decisoin-making: the crux of patient centred care. Can Med Assoc J. 2001, 165: 438-440.
Legare F, Ratte S, Stacey D, Kryworuchko J, Gravel K, Graham ID, et al: Intervenitons for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Collaboration. 2010, 5: Art.No.:CD006732. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub2.
O’Connor AM, Graham ID, Visser A: Implementing shared decision making in diverse health care systems: the role of patient decision aids. Patient Educ Couns. 2005, 57: 247-249. 10.1016/j.pec.2005.04.010.
Legare F, Stacey D, Forest PG: Shared decision-making in Canada: update, challenges and where next!. Zeitschrift für ärztliche Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen - German Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2007, 101: 213-221.
O’Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle V, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D, Holmes-Rovner M, et al: Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006, 2006: 3-
Li LC, Adam P, Townsend AF, Stacey D, Lacaille D, Cox S, et al: Improving healthcare consumer effectiveness: an animated, self-serve, Web-based research tool (ANSWER) for people with early rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009, 9: 40-10.1186/1472-6947-9-40.
International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Checklist. 2008, Ottawa Health Research Institute,http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/methods.html#checklist,
Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al: Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006, 333: 417-10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE.
Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ: Utilizing computerized entertainment education in the development of decision aids for lower literate and naive computer users. J Health Commun. 2007, 12: 681-697. 10.1080/10810730701624356.
Glik D, Berkanovic E, Stone K, Ibarra L, Jones MC, Rosen B, et al: Health education goes Hollywood: working with prime-time and daytime entertainment television for immunization promotion. J Health Commun. 1998, 3: 263-282. 10.1080/108107398127364.
Marcus PM, Huang GC, Beck V, Miller MJ: The impact of a primetime cancer storyline: from individual knowledge and behavioral intentions to policy-level changes. J Cancer Educ. 2010, 25: 484-489. 10.1007/s13187-010-0093-y.
Blair C, Valadez JJ, Falkland J: The use of professional theatre for health promotion including HIV/AIDS. J Dev Comm. 1999, 10: 9-15.
Thompson D, Baranowski T, Buday R: Conceptual model for the design of a serious video game promoting self-management among youth with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010, 4: 744-749.
Silverman BG, Mosley J, Johns M, Weaver R, Green M, Holmes J, et al: Computer games may be good for your health: shifting healthcare behavior via interactive drama videogames. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings/AMIA Symposium :1075, 2003. 2003, 2003: 1075-
Brown SJ, Lieberman DA, Germeny BA, Fan YC, Wilson DM, Pasta DJ: Educational video game for juvenile diabetes: results of a controlled trial. Med Inform. 1997, 22: 77-89. 10.3109/14639239709089835.
Jibaja-Weiss ML: Entertainment education for informed breast cancer treatment decisions in low-literate women: development and initial evaluation of a patient decision aid. J Cancer Educ. 2006, 21: 133-139. 10.1207/s15430154jce2103_8.
Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Shea BJ, Tugwell P, Wells G: Methotrexate for treating rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008, 3 (2): Art. No.: CD000957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000957
Visser K, Katchamart W, Loza E, Martinez-Lopez JA, Salliot C, Trudeau J, et al: Multinational evidence-based recommendations for the use of methotrexate in rheumatic disorders with a focus on rheumatoid arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad international panel of rheumatologists in the 3E Initiative. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009, 68: 1086-1693. 10.1136/ard.2008.094474.
Townsend AF, Backman CL, Adam P, Li LC: A qualitative interview study: Patient accounts of medication use in early rheumatoid arthritis from symptom onset to early post diagnosis. BMJ Open. 2013, 3 (2):
Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR: Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1980, 23: 137-145. 10.1002/art.1780230202.
Stucki G, Liang MH, Stucki S, Bruhlmann P, Michel BA: A self-administered rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index (RADAI) for epidemiologic research. Psychometric properties and correlation with parameters of disease activity. Arthritis Rheum. 1995, 38: 795-798. 10.1002/art.1780380612.
Fransen J, Langenegger T, Michel BA, Stucki G: Feasibility and validity of the RADAI, a self-administered rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000, 39: 321-327. 10.1093/rheumatology/39.3.321.
Rubin J, Chisnell D: Handbook of Usability Testing, Second Edition: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests. 2008, Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Pubishing, Inc.
Ericsson KA, Simon HA: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. 1984, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Lewis CH: “Thinking Aloud” Method In Cognitive Interface Design (Technical report RC-9265). 1982, Yorktown Heights, NY: IBM
Brooke J: SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry. Edited by: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland IL. 1996, London: Taylor & Francis, 189-194.
Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT: An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Inter J Human-Comput Interac. 2008, 24: 574-594. 10.1080/10447310802205776.
Strauss A, Corbin J: Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. 1990, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Stinson JN, Petroz GC, Tait G, Feldman BM, Streiner D, McGrath PJ, et al: e-Ouch: usability testing of an electronic chronic pain diary for adolescents with arthritis. Clin J Pain. 2006, 22: 295-305. 10.1097/01.ajp.0000173371.54579.31.
Stinson J, McGrath P, Hodnett E, Feldman B, Duffy C, Huber A, et al: Usability testing of an online self-management program for adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J Med Internet Res. 2010, 12: e30-10.2196/jmir.1349.
Reichlin L, Mani N, McArthur K, Harris AM, Rajan N, Dacso CC: Assessing the acceptability and usability of an interactive serious game in aiding treatment decisions for patients with localized prostate cancer. J Med Internet Res. 2011, 13: e4-10.2196/jmir.1519.
Nielsen J: What is usability. User Experience Re-Mastered. Edited by: Wilson C. 2009, Canada: Morgan Kaufmann, 3-22.
Yen PY, Bakken S: Review of health information technology usability study methodologies. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012, 19: 413-422. 10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000020.
Nielsen J: Heuristic evaluation. Usability Inspection Methods. Edited by: Nielsen J, Mack RL. 1994, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 25-64.
Mack RL, Montaniz F: Observing, predicting and analyzing usability problems. Usability Inspection Methods. Edited by: Nielsen J, Mack RL. 1994, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 293-336.
Nielsen J: Usability Engineering. 1993, Boston, MA: Academic Press
Van den Haak M, de Jong M, Schellens PJ: Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: testing the usability of an online library catalogue. Behav Inform Technol. 2003, 22: 339-351. 10.1080/0044929031000.
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/13/131/prepub
The authors are grateful for the support of patient/consumer collaborators, including Otto Kamensek (Arthritis Research Centre Consumer Advisory Board), Cheryl Koehn (Arthritis Consumer Experts), Colleen Maloney (Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance), health education consultant Gwen Ellert and information scientist Jessie McGowan. We also thank our digital media collaborators Jeannette Kopak and George Johnson (Centre for Digital Media) for organizing and supervising two Master of Digital Media student teams to develop the ANSWER. The Design and Development Team: Conrad Chan, Fouad Hafiz, Felwa Abukhodair, Liam Kelly, Karin Schmidlin, Yamin Li, and Shao Yingyun. The Production Team: Shahrzad Aghasharifianesfahani, Erez Barzilay, Jason Ho, Milim Kim, Clark Kim, Natalia Mitrofanova, and Al Sinoy. The ANSWER programming was led by Matt Jenkins. Original music was composed by Ben Euerby.
This study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) operating grant (funding reference number: KAL 94482).
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
The study was conceived by LCL, PMA, AFT and CLB. All authors contributed to the development of the research protocol. LCL is the principal applicant and PMA is the decision-maker co-principal applicant. Writing of the manuscript was led by LCL and all authors approved the final version.