Evaluation of Project Engage - Staff Side Team RENEU - Anran Ye - Aalap Doshi - Gaurav Pimprikar -...

Evaluation of Project Engage - Staff Side

Team RENEU

- Anran Ye

- Aalap Doshi

- Gaurav Pimprikar

- Yung-Ju Chang

Home

Overview

Methodology

Problems & Recommendations

Summary

Home • Overview of Project Engage• Methodology• Problems and Recommendations• Summary

Home

OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ENGAGE

Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

• “University of Michigan Engage is intended to provide ‘one-stop shopping’ for people who want to help medicine move forward by participating in clinical research at the University of Michigan.”

Overview

Overview

Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

• Engage has several features - study database, public search tool, community information as well as a secure Registry.

– The Study Database feature allows study teams at University of Michigan to post their clinical research trials for the public to view.

– The Registry is a feature that • allows interested volunteers to enroll in a registry, • automatically matches volunteers to potential studies so that

researchers can contact them as potential candidates

Functionality

Overview

Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

User Demographics

Busy Researchers who want to do their things quickly

1

Study Co-ordinators who want an easy and intuitive system

2

Engage Staff who wants to make Engage an easy and pleasurable experience for the users

3

Overview

Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

• It is a very good concept and has the potential to reduce the difficulties in recruiting volunteers for clinical research.

• "Once you get the hang of it, the website is easy to use."

• The website is IRB approved and so one can post clinical studies on it without any concerns.

• The Engage team is very cooperative and committed to the improvement of Engage.

Successful Features

Overview

METHODOLOGY

Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

Methodology

Team RENUE has completed a thorough exploration of the website structure using:

•Generalized Transition Network •Interviews and focus group•Comparative Analysis •Personas and Scenarios •Heuristic Evaluation using Jakob Nielson's Heuristics•User survey•Usability tests•Vocabulary Analysis

Methodology

PROBLEM AREAS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

Problem Area 1: Login

Absence of prominent login points for staff in the entire site.

• There is a lack of clues leading users to the login page.

• There is no separate section dedicated to login and the link is buried deep in text.

• Users took an average of 4.2425 minutes just to login.

Problems &Recommendations

Home

Overview

Methodology


Summaryfold

Engage Main Page



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

Still trying to login…



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

Recommendations:

• The staff login link should be present on the home page.

• A prominent section dedicated to login on the home page will go a long way in making the website more accessible and user-friendly.



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

The navigation through the system is hampered by the following problems:

•Two sections critical to staff, namely “Post/Edit Study” and “Online Registry” are disconnected from each other.• Users have to go back to main page to get to another section.


Problem Area 2: Navigation

Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

Recommendation:

• A single login section on the home page leads to different options such as bulletin board, Registry, etc.

• The use of a consistent navigation bar will make it possible for the users to move about freely on the website.



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

A. Lack Of User Control When Managing Volunteers

• Users have very limited approach to categorize volunteers.

• The buttons to categorize & corresponding category link have the same name and hence

are easy to be confused with each other.

• Lack of flexibility when categorizing volunteers. e.g: records can be moved from ‘Plan to

Contact’ to ‘Contacted’ directly, but not the other way around.

Problem Area 3: User Control & Freedom


Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

The button to categorize and corresponding category link have the same name and hence are easy to be confused with each other.



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

Only one way tagging is possible



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

Recommendations:

• Users should be able to tag records from the full record page and move records from one category to another without extra steps.

• A feedback mechanism needs to be implemented which states the actions that have taken place.

• Long-term Recommendation: A main table for all volunteers with their status indicated



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

A Mock-up of the Suggested Volunteer Tagging System

# Name Careweb access

Plan to contact

Contacted ineligible

1 Ben Linus Y X

2 Desmond Hume Y X X

3 Shannon Rutherford

Y X

4 Sun-Hwa Kwon Y X X

5 Sayid Jarrah N X

6 Hurley Reyes N X



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

B. Selection of Principal Investigator not clear

• The principle investigators’ name cannot be typed into the box directly.

• The tool of searching ‘Principal investigator’ only supports unique name and last name search.



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

The principle investigators’ name cannot be typed into the box directly.



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

The tool of searching ‘Principal investigator’ only supports unique name and last name search.

If the user did not know the unique name, the only alternative is to search the last name, which usually leads to quite a long list of names to choose from.



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

Recommendations:

• Allow the user to type into the textbox.

• Design a drop down list of names, which emerges when users enter characters into the textbox.

• More searching fields should be added into the ‘Principal investigator’ search such as first name as well as last name.



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

A: Metaphor -- My Bulletin Board

• In the physical world: usually mentioned as a board for posting bulletins, messages and announcements.

• In Engage: a system to post and edit studies.

Problem Area 4: Vocabulary


Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

Recommendation:

• Short-term: Replace the current metaphor with more intuitive term such as ‘My postings’ or ‘My studies’.

• Long-term: Design the ‘Bulletin Board’ to be similar to its real world counter part.

For example: - In-site communication system- Short messages, announcement, etc.



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

B: Managing Volunteer The ‘Look at Volunteers' link leads to the

‘Requested Contact' list which often contains no records.



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

Recommendations:

• Short-term: Replace ‘Requested Contact' with ‘Potential Subjects’.

• Long-term: A main table for all volunteers with their status indicated (as discussed previously).



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

C: ‘Find studies’ Link

• The link to ‘My Bulletin Board’ is placed on the ‘find studies’ page. Hence the ‘find studies’ link misleads most users.

• “So I have to go though ‘Find Studies ’ to post studies?”-- user testing, U02



Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

Recommendations:

Place a separate link on the Engage home page titled ‘Bulletin Board’ or ‘Post/Edit studies’.

OR

Rename ‘Find studies’ to ‘Find/Post studies’.



SUMMARY

Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

The Engage project is a significant step in helping MedicalResearchers find suitable Volunteers. We believe that theabove recommendations will improve their efficiency andcreate a better environment for the allocation of volunteers.

Summary

Summary

Home

Overview

Methodology


Summary

Thank You…

Keep ‘Engage’ing…

Evaluation of Project Engage - Staff Side Team RENEU - Anran Ye - Aalap Doshi - Gaurav Pimprikar -...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of Project Engage - Staff Side Team RENEU - Anran Ye - Aalap Doshi - Gaurav Pimprikar -...