↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Human factors evaluation of a novel digital medicine system in psychiatry

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Human factors evaluation of a novel digital medicine system in psychiatry
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, February 2018
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s157102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy Peters-Strickland, Ainslie Hatch, Anke Adenwala, Katie Atkinson, Benjamin Bartfeld

Abstract

The digital medicine system (DMS), a drug-device combination developed for patients with serious mental illness, integrates adherence measurement with pharmacologic treatment by embedding an ingestible sensor in a pill, allowing for information sharing among patients, health care providers (HCPs), and caregivers via a mobile interface. Studies conducted during the DMS development process aimed to minimize cognitive burden and use-related risks and demonstrated effective use of the technology. Human factors (HF) studies assessed the system's safe and effective use by the intended users for the intended uses. The patient interface was tested in six formative HF studies followed by a validation study. The HCP/caregiver interface was tested in one study before validation. All tasks critical to safety or necessary for effective use were included. Formative studies identified use-related risks and the causes of use problems to guide design modification. Validation of the patient and HCP/caregiver interfaces assessed risks of the final product. During the patient formative studies, design improvements were made to address problems and mitigate risks thought to be associated with a suboptimal system design or patient understanding of the system. In the validation study of the patient interface, 35 patients attempted 23 performance tasks, for a total of 805 attempts; 783/805 attempts were completed with success. One close call, 15 failures, and 6 difficulties occurred on these user tasks; only 3 of these were on a critical task. Residual risks resistant to mitigation were found to be of low severity based on the US Food and Drug Administration 2016 guidance. The final design of the DMS reflects input by the intended user populations through a comprehensive development methodology. In alignment with the US Food and Drug Administration goals for HF studies, the system was found to be safe and effective for the intended users, uses, and use environments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 13%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Lecturer 6 7%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 31 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Computer Science 7 8%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 37 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,879,822
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,489
of 3,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,151
of 450,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#38
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.