Iterative Evaluation of a Web-Based Health Information Resource

Abstract

This paper presents the research process and methods used to evaluate and improve a web-based health information resource intended for the public. The resource is called Community Connect to Research (CC2R) (www.connecttoresearch.org). The research process was an iterative one that involved collaboration with many partners. Two formal evaluations were conducted in 2009 and 2010 using key informant interviews, usability interviews, focus groups, an online survey, and readability and suitability assessment tools. These methods provided us with users’ perspective on the overall design, content, and literacy demands of the web site as well as valuable feedback on their interaction with the web site. We subsequently redesigned CC2R, making significant improvements based on what we learned from the evaluation. The second evaluation revealed that the redesign addressed many issues found in the first evaluation and identified additional areas of possible improvement. Overall, both evaluations suggested that participants believed that the web site was useful and valuable, indicating that CC2R is indeed a health information resource that provides patients and families with accessible, relevant, and high-quality information. Our experience suggests that regular formal evaluation is an essential tool for effective ongoing enhancement of health information resources meant for the public.

Preferences Related to the Use of Mobile Apps as Dental Patient Educational Aids: A Pilot Study

“…Potential participants were approached based on estimated age in order to make the members within a group as similar as possible. A priori, a minimum sample size of 25 participants was chosen based on other focus group literature and studies . Similarly, per focus group guidelines, it was determined that a minimum of three focus group sessions would be conducted and that additional sessions would be conducted until a saturation of responses was obtained, thus determining the sample size and ending participant recruitment .…”

Challenges of evaluating a computer-based educational programme for women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial

“…A more fully developed protocol for using SIRI may have been useful in further exploring the black box behind the absence of impact of the educational programme on the selected outcomes. Moreover, a regular formal evaluation of the intervention's design, features and content, and their enhancement might have been helpful in keeping the educational programme up to date throughout the trial (Rosenfeld, Shepherd, Agunwamba, & Mccray, 2013) and should be considered by e-Health researchers planning prospective e-Health trials.…”

Trustworthiness, Readability, and Suitability of Web-Based Information for Stroke Prevention and Self-Management for Korean Americans: Critical Evaluation

“…Studies on the readability of patient education materials have often used both the SMOG and SAM tools together. For example, Rosenfeld et al [ 38 ] and Shieh and Hosei [ 39 ] computed the SMOG scores and integrated the scores to SAM 3-point categories. Similarly, in this study, the grade levels computed by the SMOG formula were converted to the SAM’s 3-point scale, where 0=not suitable (9th-grade level and above), 1=adequate (6th-, 7th-, or 8th-grade level), and 2=superior (5th-grade level or lower).…”