@文章{info:doi/ 10.296 /18073，作者="Patel, Tejal和Ivo, Jessica和Faisal, Sadaf和McDougall, Aidan和Carducci, Jillian和Pritchard, Sarah和Chang, Feng"，标题="老年人、护理人员和卫生保健提供者电子药物依从性产品的可用性和工作量的前瞻性研究"，期刊="J Med Internet Res"，年="2020"，月="Jun"，日="2"，卷="22"，数="6"，页="e18073"，关键词="电子药物依从性;可用性;工作负载;老年病学;老年人;背景:老年人自我管理药物的能力下降会导致不坚持服药、用药错误和药物相关问题。先前的研究确定了80种电子药物依从性产品，可帮助患者自我管理药物。不幸的是，这些产品的可用性和工作量是未知的。目的:本研究旨在检查电子药物依从性产品样本的可用性和工作量。方法:在一项前瞻性混合方法研究中，老年人、卫生保健专业人员和护理人员的样本测试了21种电子药物依从性产品的可用性和工作量。 Each participant tested 5 products, one at a time, after which they completed the system usability scale (SUS) and NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX), instruments that measure the usability and workload involved in using a product. Higher SUS scores indicate more user-friendliness, whereas lower NASA-TLX raw scores indicate less workload when using a product. Results: Electronic medication adherence products required a mean of 12.7 steps (range 5-20) for the appropriate use and took, on average, 15.19 min to complete the setup tasks (range 1-56). Participants were able to complete all steps without assistance 55.3{\%} of the time (103 out of the 186 tests were completed by 39 participants; range 0{\%}-100{\%}). The mean SUS and NASA-TLX raw scores were 52.8 (SD 28.7; range 0-100) and 50.0 (SD 25.7; range 4.2-99.2), respectively, revealing significant variability among the electronic medication adherence products. The most user-friendly products were found to be TimerCap travel size (mean 78.67, SD 15.57; P=.03) and eNNOVEA Weekly Planner with Advanced Auto Reminder (mean 78.13, SD 14.13; P=.049) as compared with MedReady 1700 automated medication dispenser (mean 28.63, SD 21.24). Similarly, MedReady (72.92, SD 18.69) was found to be significantly more work intensive when compared with TimerCap (29.35, SD 20.35; P=.03), e-pill MedGlider home medication management system (28.43, SD 20.80; P=.02), and eNNOVEA (28.65, SD 14.97; P=.03). The e-pill MedTime Station automatic pill dispenser with tipper (71.77, SD 21.98) had significantly more workload than TimerCap (P=.04), MedGlider (P=.03), and eNNOVEA (P=.04). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that variability exists in the usability and workload of different electronic medication adherence products among older adults, caregivers, and clinicians. With few studies having investigated the usability and workload of electronic medication adherence products, no benchmarks exist to compare the usability and workload of these products. However, our study highlights the need to assess the usability and workload of different products marketed to assist with medication taking and provides guidance to clinicians regarding electronic medication adherence product recommendations for their patients. Future development of electronic medication adherence products should ensure that the target populations of patients are able to use these products adequately to improve medication management. ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/18073", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2020/6/e18073", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/18073", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32348292" }