User Evaluation of Group-in-a-Box Variants

Author(s):  
Nozomi Aoyama ◽  
Yosuke Onoue ◽  
Yuki Ueno ◽  
Hiroaki Natsukawa ◽  
Koji Koyamada
Keyword(s):  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Squire ◽  
Elizabet haro ◽  
Patrick Mead ◽  
John Schultz ◽  
Adrian Adame

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Galeoto ◽  
Mariele Colucci ◽  
Domenico Guarino ◽  
Giuseppina Esposito ◽  
Elisabetta Cosma ◽  
...  

1993 ◽  
Vol 32 (05) ◽  
pp. 365-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Timmeis ◽  
J. H. van Bemmel ◽  
E. M. van Mulligen

AbstractResults are presented of the user evaluation of an integrated medical workstation for support of clinical research. Twenty-seven users were recruited from medical and scientific staff of the University Hospital Dijkzigt, the Faculty of Medicine of the Erasmus University Rotterdam, and from other Dutch medical institutions; and all were given a written, self-contained tutorial. Subsequently, an experiment was done in which six clinical data analysis problems had to be solved and an evaluation form was filled out. The aim of this user evaluation was to obtain insight in the benefits of integration for support of clinical data analysis for clinicians and biomedical researchers. The problems were divided into two sets, with gradually more complex problems. In the first set users were guided in a stepwise fashion to solve the problems. In the second set each stepwise problem had an open counterpart. During the evaluation, the workstation continuously recorded the user’s actions. From these results significant differences became apparent between clinicians and non-clinicians for the correctness (means 54% and 81%, respectively, p = 0.04), completeness (means 64% and 88%, respectively, p = 0.01), and number of problems solved (means 67% and 90%, respectively, p = 0.02). These differences were absent for the stepwise problems. Physicians tend to skip more problems than biomedical researchers. No statistically significant differences were found between users with and without clinical data analysis experience, for correctness (means 74% and 72%, respectively, p = 0.95), and completeness (means 82% and 79%, respectively, p = 0.40). It appeared that various clinical research problems can be solved easily with support of the workstation; the results of this experiment can be used as guidance for the development of the successor of this prototype workstation and serve as a reference for the assessment of next versions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (764) ◽  
pp. 2099-2108
Author(s):  
Masataka YASUE ◽  
Sohei TSUJIMURA ◽  
Mineko IMANISHI ◽  
Yoshiki IKEDA ◽  
Tomonori SANO

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (Sup8) ◽  
pp. 25-35
Author(s):  
Peta Lager ◽  
Lisa Loxdale

Leaks and peristomal skin complications are highly prevalent among people with a stoma, reported by over 80% of ostomates within 2 years of surgery. This suggests that there is room for improvement in ostomy appliances, particularly in their hydrocolloid-based adhesive flanges. Hydrocolloid has an absorptive method of moisture management that, over time, risks maceration and skin stripping, potentially leading to moisture-associated skin damage (MASD) and medical adhesive-related skin injury (MARSI). The newly developed Genii ostomy appliances (Trio Healthcare) use novel Sil2 Breathable Silicone Technology to provide secure, effective adhesion and manage moisture levels by replicating natural transepidermal water loss (TEWL). This has the potential to increase appliance wear time, reduce incidence of MASD and permit atraumatic removal without adhesive remover, reducing the risks of MARSI, as well as time burdens on the user and economic burdens on the healthcare system. Meanwhile, the silicone flanges and water-resistant sports fabric pouches are lightweight, flexible and unobtrusive, and they are the first appliances to be available in colours to match different skin tones, all of which provides security, comfort, confidence and discretion. This article explores the features of Sil2 and Genii ostomy appliances, with reference to preliminary data from a user evaluation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document