↓ Skip to main content

Usability evaluation with mental health professionals and young people to develop an Internet-based cognitive-behaviour therapy program for adolescents with anxiety disorders

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
327 Mendeley
Title
Usability evaluation with mental health professionals and young people to develop an Internet-based cognitive-behaviour therapy program for adolescents with anxiety disorders
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12887-015-0534-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lori Wozney, Pamela Baxter, Amanda S. Newton

Abstract

Use of the Internet to deliver cognitive behavioural therapy, a frontline treatment for anxiety disorders, is emerging as an option to increase access to treatment among adolescents with anxiety disorders. This study examined the usability of the Internet-based component of Breathe, a CBT program designed for adolescents with mild to moderate anxiety and impairments. A mixed-method usability testing design with semi-structured interviews, task completion, and survey by trained usability moderators was undertaken with two interactive cycles to determine the usability (ease of use, efficiency, errors, and user satisfaction) of the user interface and content areas of the program. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit mental health clinicians with expertise in treating adolescent anxiety disorders and young people aged 15 to 24 years involved. Testing involved using Web-conferencing software that allowed remote participation through personal computers. Two testing cycles involved participants completing structured 'think aloud' and 'cognitive walkthrough' tasks within the program. At the end of each cycle participants completed a 15-item global usability evaluation survey and were asked a series of open-ended questions. Descriptive and simple content analyses were used to identify and score usability issues for frequency and severity. Five clinicians and four young people (all < 20 years of age) participated. Most participants described their computer skills as 'good' (60 % clinicians, 50 % young people), and attitudes toward Internet-based health care ranged from negative (75 % young people) to positive (60 % clinicians, 25 % young people). Scores from the global usability evaluation after both testing cycles ranged from 3.5 to 5 out of 5 in strong agreement/support of the program in terms of user performance indicators (i.e., learnability, efficiency and number of errors) and user satisfaction. Participants were able to complete all critical tasks with minimal errors. Errors and issues identified during testing were predominantly around enhancements to the visual design and navigational support. Opinions across usability elements did not differ between young people and clinician participants. A multi-method remote usability approach provided the opportunity to improve the technical interface, therapeutic messaging and user experience of an Internet-based treatment program for adolescent anxiety disorders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 327 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 325 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 11%
Student > Master 34 10%
Student > Bachelor 33 10%
Researcher 27 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 33 10%
Unknown 149 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 51 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 7%
Social Sciences 19 6%
Computer Science 18 6%
Other 29 9%
Unknown 159 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,432,465
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#2,352
of 3,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,668
of 390,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#43
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 390,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.