Table 5 Overview of phases and sub studies
Phase & sub study | Aim | Method | Results & insights | Implications for Patient Navigator |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1) Development: Think aloud study (Bolle et al., 2016) | Gain insight into usability issues and the perceived usefulness older cancer patients experience when using existing cancer-related online health information tools | Video-recorded think-aloud observations for 7 Web-based health information tools | - Patients appreciate and were able to use cancer-related online health information tools. - Patients had difficulties navigating through websites that had complex structures (eg, multiple navigation bars) and layouts that were inconvenient for example, buttons that were too small to click on). - Patients appreciated information presented in different modalities (mostly if it was to clarify the text and less for aesthetic reasons). - Patients varied greatly in terms of the amount of information they wanted to receive. | - Navigation structure and possibilities should be kept simple - Information should be concise - Amount of questions for QPL tool should be limited and patients should be provided with clear explanation about QPL. - Information should be presented in multiple modalities; videos and illustrations should be developed. |
1) Development: Lay-out study | Test different lay-out options among older cancer patients | Interviews | - Patients preferred contrasting color schemes - Patients preferred illustrations of characters instead of photos. | - Contrasting color schemes are advised - Illustrations of characters are advised. |
2) Pilot testing: Think aloud observations | Investigate how older adults and their partners evaluate the Patient Navigator | Think aloud observation while interacting with the Patient Navigator | - Overall patients were satisfied when using the Patient Navigator, but had some navigation problems Several usability problems were identified: - Patients had difficulties finding/or did not actively seek the decision support and consult preparation. - Patients had difficulties with adjusting the content of the tool to their personal situation | - Make labels and headers representative for their contents. - Make entire menu buttons clickable. - Rename the labels of the menu - Location of possibility to tailor the Patient Navigator should be clearer. Change name of the header. - Menu with explanation of structure on the homepage. - Health information should be checked by health professionals to ensure it is correct. |
2) Pilot testing: Usability study | Investigate how older adults and their partners evaluate the Patient Navigator on its usability (how effective, efficient and satisfied they are when using the Patient Navigator). | Usability questionnaire | - Patient Navigator was evaluated positively regarding the attractiveness, comprehensibility, emotional support and different usability issues. - Patients still experienced some difficulties with the labels and menu of the Patient Navigator. | - Renaming the labels in the menu again. - Adapting the lay-out of the menu shown on the homepage. |