Iterative Development and Usability Evaluation of an Open-Source Rehabilitation Follow-Up Platform: User-Centered Development Study.
Noora Emilia Angelva, Franziska Gurschler, Michael Single and 11 others
PMID 42596787WHAT IT FOUND
A rehabilitation follow-up app was tested for ease of use by 24 people in one session; they found it easy to use.
This tells you nothing about whether it helps patients recover. No clinical outcomes were measured.
Key findings
01The platform scored in the 'excellent' usability range (SUS 82.8 out of 100, SD 14.1) and 20 of 24 participants (83%) rated the task set as easy or very easy; no participant rated any task as difficult.
02Among the 8 health care professionals, 7 (88%) said they would use the platform in practice and 6 (75%) would recommend it to colleagues, though the perceived impact on workload was split: 3 expected it to reduce time and workload, 3 were unsure, and 1 said it would not.
03The most frequently raised qualitative theme across all three participant groups was the desire for clearer progress tracking and actionable feedback (e.g., 'tiny wins,' weekly overviews); the second most common theme was simplifying the interface, reducing button clutter, and fixing error messages and unexpected logouts.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Single-session, formative usability evaluation with 24 participants at one site; not powered for any statistical comparison between groups. Participants reported relatively high familiarity with digital technologies, which may have inflated the usability scores. No clinical outcomes, adherence, long-term engagement, or real-world workflow integration were measured; the study explicitly states it was not designed to assess clinical effectiveness. The qualitative analysis was performed by a single researcher with no independent dual coding or interrater reliability check. The evaluated prototype did not include features added after the evaluation (e.g., browser-based daily reminders), so the scores do not reflect the current release. The sample was recruited from one hospital's rehabilitation department, limiting generalisability to other institutional contexts and patient populations. No hypothesis tests were performed; all quantitative results are descriptive.
Declared interests
Funded by the COPAIN project (Co-creation and evaluation of a sensor-based closed-loop telecare program for multimorbid patients after inpatient rehabilitation), supported by the SF-Board of the University of Bern and the Insel Group (grant 750,000 CHF). No conflicts of interest declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the high usability scores (SUS 82.8, 83% easy-to-use) as evidence that this platform improves patient recovery, adherence, or clinical outcomes. The study measured whether 24 people found the software easy to use in a single moderated session; it did not measure whether patients who used it recovered better, stuck with their exercises, or had fewer complications. The authors state explicitly that adherence, long-term engagement, clinical effectiveness, and real-world adoption were not assessed.