mICF research

1. We present the methodology for a multi-site evaluation process of minimum viable
products to inform the development and dissemination of a patient-centred and patient-driven mobile
application that will facilitate the use of the ICF to improve care and management for people with
disabilities and chronic health conditions.
Abstract
Title
We demonstrate the methodology to
evaluate a minimum viable software
product (MVP) to facilitate the use of
the ICF by the population. This requires
careful assessment of needs and
usability before a product can be rolled
out to a larger group of users.
mICF work package 4
Market research methodology to
evaluate the development of a
mobile application of the ICF
17-23 October 2015
Manchester
United Kingdom
Poster Number: 000
WHO - FAMILY OF INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS NETWORK ANNUAL MEETING 2015
Kraus de Camargo O1, Snyman S2, Anttila H3, Maribo T4, Martins A5, Weckström P6, Wagener D7, Masson C7,
Paltamaa J6, on behalf of the International mICF partnership
1McMaster University, Canada; 2Stellenbosch University, South Africa; 3National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland; 4Marselisborg
Centre, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Denmark; 5ESTeSC Coimbra Health School, Portugal; 6JAMK University of
Applied Sciences, Finland, 7Stone Three Venture Technology (Pty) Ltd, South Africa
Title
Methods & Materials
References
This work will occur in close
collaboration with both content
specification (WP2) and lean MVP
design (WP3) teams, which run as
parallel processes. This work package
addresses the question, if the
application is not only usable but also if
it describes the person’s level of
functioning in a valid way.
To inform the development team in a
timely fashion, the test sites will work
with relatively small user groups of
about 30 service users and 2 to 4
service providers. This allows for a
quick collection of relevant data,
feedback to the software designers and
rapid updating and bug fixing. Each
iteration of the product will be tested in
a new group of users without previous
exposure to the application. This allows
for capturing relevant data from first-
time users and avoids a masking effect
of potential issues through learning
from subsequent exposures. The
captured results will then be sent back
to the content (WP2) and software
design (WP3) working groups. It is
estimated that in a period of 6 months,
5 iterations can be concluded in each
testing site (see table for testing sites).
Evaluations will be conducted in
different parts of the world focusing
specifically on 3 important and
interrelated aspects: information
quality, system quality and service
quality that will be measured
separately.1 Both formative and
summative evaluations will be used to
gather opinions of service user and
service provider groups to enhance
further development and
dissemination. Their opinions are
important in the further development
and dissemination of the mICF.2
1) DeLone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean
Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-
Year Update. J Manag Inf Syst. 2003;19(4):9–30.
2) Ammenwerth E, Duftschmid G, Gall W, Hackl WO,
Hoerbst A, Janzek-Hawlat S, et al. A nationwide
computerized patient medication history:
Evaluation of the Austrian pilot project “e-
Medikation.” Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(9):655–
69.
3) Holden RJ, Karsh B-T. The technology acceptance
model: its past and its future in health care. J
Biomed Inform [Internet]. Elsevier Inc.;
2010;43(1):159–72. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002
4) Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of
Use, and User Acceptance of lnformation
Technology. MIS Q [Internet]. 1989;13(3):319–
40. Available from:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0276-
7783(198909)13:3<319:PUPEOU>2.0.CO;2-E
5) Abdekhoda M, Ahmadi M, Dehnad a, Hosseini a F.
Information technology acceptance in health
information management. Methods Inf Med.
2014;53(1):14–20.
6) Schulz R, Wahl H-W, Matthews JT, De Vito Dabbs
A, Beach SR, Czaja SJ. Advancing the Aging and
Technology Agenda in Gerontology. Gerontologist.
2014 Aug;[Epub ahead of print].
The evaluation results will contribute to
a strengthened evidence base on
health outcomes, quality of life and
care efficiency gains from the use of
the ICT (mICF solution) in integrated
service provision. This will reinforce
knowledge with respect to
management of co-morbidities.
Countries Partners
Finland THL, North Karelia District, Barona Hoiva Oy, JAMK & PT centre (low back
pain), JAMK & Onerva Centre for Learning and Consulting
Denmark MC & Spine Centre
Portugal ESTeSC – Coimbra Health School
Italy AAS2 (adults), FINCB (children)
Germany MSH & Early Intervention Centres
South Africa SU – Rural sites: Cape Winelands Health Districts, Ukwanda Rural Clinical
School
SU – Urban sites: Developmental and Community-based healthcare centres
Canada MCM Children’s Hospital, ASD Services
Brazil CIF & Functional Health Centres from Municipality of Barueri
India DFI and Community Health Settings (elderly)
Korea Silla University Hospital (low back pain)
E
Introduction
ConclusionsThe aim of the tool is to assess how
users’ are interacting with mICF
(users per country, frequency of
contacts with different service
providers, costs and net benefits).
The technology acceptance model
(TAM) will be used for measuring
use/intention to use and user
satisfaction.3 TAM evaluates:
• The perceived usefulness:
“People tend to use or not use an
application to the extent they believe it
will help perform their job better”.
Perceived ease of use refers to "the
degree to which a person believes that
using a particular system would be free
of effort“.4,5 To guarantee the
validation of the results, the evaluation
will use data triangulation with regard
to time, space, or persons, investigator
triangulation, theory triangulation, and
methods triangulation.2
• Acceptance and use of IT:
information technology:
We will also assess by whom and why
technology is adopted and/or
abandoned. As we strive to hit the
“sweet spot” of maximizing well-being
and functioning through technology
without undermining the future
performance potential of the individual
we will also assess the potential
negative outcomes. The harmful
effects could be e.g. compromising
autonomy and independence and by
promoting a false sense of security.6 @ICFmobile