Design Considerations of Online Infertility Prevention Training (OIPT): Development and Evaluation

Abstract

Health-related internet sources should contain accurate, reliable and updated information, and their usability should be high to enable people to navigate successfully. This study aimed to develop interactive Online Infertility Prevention Training (OIPT) and to reveal design principles by evaluating the online training. The development, design, and redesign processes of this study included four iterations: 1) needs analysis, 2) implementation as a usability test, 3) implementation with the target group in a class, and 4) comparison of iteration II and III, and decision; and two outputs. The research process included the participation of the target audience in the design process and there were continuous corrections to the design. In the study, a design-based research approach was used. In the qualitative dimension, the data was collected with “User Information Form”, “System Usability Observation Form”, and the system usability interview form, and task cards. In the quantitative dimension, Infertility Knowledge Test, System Usability Scale, and also database records were used. The data obtained from tools were analyzed descriptively and predictively. As a result, this research claimed that design, development, and evaluation belong to health-related sources on the Internet should include field design principles and techniques and specific methods, although designers use prevalent techniques. The results indicated that gender’s effect on media and material design, the importance of the use of expert authority in the presentation of content knowledge that system usability significantly increased from iteration two to three. Therefore, gender differences in media and material preferences except for content knowledge and also expert views may be considered in the design of health-related online training. In addition, while teaching concrete parts of the human body, interactive animations and visuals may be useful to motivate and increase engagement students to use the content again and again. Furthermore, the results of this study show that feedback design is crucial in the navigation of online learning environments. Overall, this study strengthens the idea that while designing online education environments, it is important to determine users’ needs and expectations at first, afterwards conducting usability tests to specify the design challenges.

Keywords

• Usability
• Design considerations
• Interactive environments
• Infertility

References

1. Adam, M., McMahon, S. A., Prober, C., & Bärnighausen, T. (2019). Human-centered design of video-based health education: an iterative, collaborative, community-based approach. Journal of Medical Internet research, 21(1), e12128, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/12128
2. Altun, A. (2000). Patterns in cognitive processes and strategies in hypertext reading: A case study of two experienced computer users. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(1), 35-55.
3. Alwashmi, M., Hawboldt, J., Davis, E., Marra, C., Gamble, J. M., & Ashour, W. A. (2016). The effect of smartphone interventions on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 4(3), e105, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.5921
4. Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Human memory. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
5. Bailey, B. (2006). Getting the complete picture with usability testing. Retrieved 20.03.2018, from https://www.usability.gov/get-involved/blog/2006/03/complete-picture-with-usability-testing.html.
6. Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776
7. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1
8. Baran, B. Siyez, D. M., Kagnici, Y. D., Seymenler, S., Esen, E. Ozturk, B. & Siyez, E. (2017, August 7-8). Determination of the needs for development of infertility psycho-educational program and the design of a website about infertility for university students [Paper presentation]. 20th Euro Congress on Psychiatrists and Psychologists, Rome, Italy. DOI: 10.4172/2378-5756-C1-023 https://www.walshmedicalmedia.com/conference-abstracts-files/2378-5756-C1-023-020.pdf

9. Bayazıt, A., & Akçapınar, G. (2018). Çevrimiçi dersler için video analitik aracının tasarlanması ve geliştirilmesi. İlköğretim Online, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2018.413719
10. Boren, T., & Ramey, J. (2000). Thinking aloud: Reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(3), 261-278. DOI: 10.1109/47.867942.
11. Borzekowski, D. L., Fobil, J. N., & Asante, K. O. (2006). Online access by adolescents in Accra: Ghanaian teens' use of the internet for health information. Developmental psychology, 42(3), 450-458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.450
12. Chi, X., Hawk, S.T., Winter, S., Meeus, W. (2015). The effect of comprehensive sexual education program on sexual health knowledge and sexual attitude among college students in Southwest China. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 27(2), 2049-2066. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539513475655
13. Conceição, C., Pedro, J., & Martins, M. V. (2017). Effectiveness of a video intervention on fertility knowledge among university students: A randomised pre-test/post-test study. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 22(2), 107-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2017.1288903
14. Cyr, D.& Bonanni, C. (2005). Gender and website design in e-business. International Journal of Electronic Business, 3(6), 565–582. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEB.2005.008536
15. Çağıltay, K. (2011). İnsan bilgisayar etkileşimi ve kullanılabilirlik mühendisliği: Teoriden pratiğe. Ankara: ODTÜ Geliştirme Vakfı Yayıncılık.
16. Davids, M. R., Harvey, J., Halperin, M., & Chikte, U. M. (2015). Determining the number of participants needed for the usability evaluation of e-learning resources: A Monte Carlo simulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(5), 1051-1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12336.
17. Deng, M., Kuriansky, J., Yang, W., Lao, S., & Lao, Y. (2017). Discussion on the application of sexuality education's flipped education in Chinese college students. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14(5), e272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.04.686
18. Dikbas Torun, E., & Altun, A. (2014). The effect of levels of processing with navigation design types on recall and retention in e-learning environments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(10), 1039-1047. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2014.945963
19. Djamasbi, S., Tullis, T., Hsu, J., Mazuera, E., Osberg, K., & Bosch, J. (2007). Gender preferences in web design: usability testing through eye tracking. AMCIS 2007 Proceedings, 133.
20. El Said, G. R. (2017). Understanding how learners use massive open online courses and why they drop out: Thematic analysis of an interview study in a developing country. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(5), 724-752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116681302
21. Epstein, Y. M., Rosenberg, H. S., Grant, T. V., & Hemenway, N. (2002). Use of the Internet as the only outlet for talking about infertility. Fertility and Sterility, 78(3), 507-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(02)03270-3
22. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). What works and doesn’t work with instructional video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.015
23. Gungor, I., Rathfisch, G., Kizilkaya Beji, N., Yarar, M., & Karamanoglu, F. (2013). Risk‐taking behaviours and beliefs about fertility in university students. Journal of clinical nursing, 22(23-24), 3418-3427. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12097
24. Gülbahar, Y., Kalelioğlu, F., & Madran, O. (2008). Öğretim ve değerlendirme yöntemi olarak web macerası'nın kullanışlılık açısından değerlendirilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(2), 209-236.
25. Hailikari, T., Katajavuori, N., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2008). The relevance of prior knowledge in learning and instructional design. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(5), 113.
26. Harvey, S., Memon, A., Khan, R., & Yasin, F. (2017). Parent’s use of the Internet in the search for healthcare information and subsequent impact on the doctor–patient relationship. Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971- ), 186(4), 821-826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-017-1555-6
27. Hattink, B., Droes, R. M., Sikkes, S., Oostra, E., & Lemstra, A. W. (2016). Evaluation of the Digital Alzheimer Center: Testing usability and usefulness of an online portal for patients with dementia and their carers. JMIR research protocols, 5(3), e5040, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.5040
28. Hickey, C., McAleer, S., & Khalili, D. (2017, November). Design, implementation and evaluation of a blended intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy course. In Medical Education Scholarship Forum Proceedings (Vol. 3).
29. Huang Z., Yuan L. (2017) Gender Differences in Tourism Website Usability: An Empirical Study. In: Marcus A., Wang W. (eds) Design, User Experience, and Usability: Understanding Users and Contexts. DUXU 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10290. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58640-3_32
30. ISO 9241 (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals-Part 11: Guidance on usability.
31. Kim, J., Guo, P. J., Seaton, D. T., Mitros, P., Gajos, K. Z., & Miller, R. C. (2014, March). Understanding in-video dropouts and interaction peaks in online lecture videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (pp. 31-40). ACM.
32. Marriott, J. V., Stec, P., El-Toukhy, T., Khalaf, Y., Braude, P., & Coomarasamy, A. (2008). Infertility information on the World Wide Web: A cross sectional survey of quality of infertility information on the internet in the UK. Human Reproduction, 23(7), 1520-1525. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den072
33. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
34. Nielsen, J. (2012, 4 June). How many test users in a usability study?. Retrieved 14.02.2018 from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-many-test-users/
35. Paivio, A. (2001). Mind and its evolution: A dual-coding approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Poelmans, S., Wessa, P., Milis, K., Bloemen, E., & Doom, C. (2008, November). Usability and acceptance of e-learning in statistics education, based on the compendium platform, In Proceedings of the International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, 1-10.
37. Rieber, L. P. (2017). Participation patterns in a massive open online course (MOOC) about statistics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1295-1304. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12504
38. Seymenler, S. (2017). Investigating infertility knowledge and attitudes of university students (Thesis number: 486455) [Master’s thesis, Dokuz Eylül University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
39. Simon, S.J. (2001). The impact of culture and gender on web sites: an empirical study, The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 32(1), pp.18–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/506740.506744
40. Siyez, D.M., Seymenler, S., Esen, E., Siyez, E., Kağnıcı, Y., Baran, B., and Öztürk, B. (2018). Investigating knowledge levels of university students about infertility. Turkish Journal of Urology, 44(2), 153-161. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2018.78861
41. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Şahin Y. T. (2012). İnfertil Çiftlerin İnfertilite Stresiyle Başa Çıkma Yöntemleri. Unpublished PhD Thesis, İstanbul University Health Sciences Institute, İstanbul.
43. Thato, R., & Penrose, J. (2013). A brief, peer-led HIV prevention program for college students in Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 26(1), 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2012.09.011
44. Travers, J. F., Elliott, S. N., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1993). Educational psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning. Madison, WI, England: Brown & Benchmark/Wm. C. Brown Publ.
45. Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31-44.
46. Trotter, M. I., & Morgan, D. W. (2008). Patients' use of the Internet for health related matters: a study of Internet usage in 2000 and 2006. Health Informatics Journal, 14(3), 175-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X08092828
47. TUIK (2018). Hanehalkı Bilişim Teknolojileri (BT) Kullanım Araştırması, Ankara. www.tuik.gov.tr
48. Virvou, M., & Katsionis, G. (2008). On the usability and likeability of virtual reality games for education: The case of VR-ENGAGE. Computers & Education, 50(1), 154-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.04.004
49. von Rosen, A. J., von Rosen, F. T., Tinnemann, P., & Müller-Riemenschneider, F. (2017). Sexual health and the internet: Cross-Sectional study of online preferences among adolescents. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(11), e379. doi:10.2196/jmir.7068. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7068
50. Williams, K. M., Stafford, R. E., Corliss, S. B., & Reilly, E. D. (2018). Examining student characteristics, goals, and engagement in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 126, 433-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.014
51. Wojcieszek, A. M., & Thompson, R. (2013). Conceiving of change: a brief intervention increases young adults' knowledge of fertility and the effectiveness of in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility, 100(2), 523-529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.03.050
52. Zegers-Hochschild, F., Adamson, G. D., de Mouzon, J., Ishihara, O., Mansour, R., Nygren, K., ... & Van der Poel, S. (2009). The international committee for monitoring assisted reproductive technology (ICMART) and the world health organization (WHO) revised glossary on ART terminology, 2009. Human reproduction, 24(11), 2683-2687.
53. Zelkowitz, P., Robins, S., & Grunberg, P. (2016). Searching for Infertility Information Online: Differences Between Men and Women. Iproceedings, 2(1): e37. DOI: 10.2196/iproc.6243
54. Zheng, L. (2015). A systematic literature review of design-based research from 2004 to 2013. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0036-z
55. Zillien, N., Haake, G., Fröhlich, G., Bense, T., & Souren, D. (2011). Internet use of fertility patients: a systemic review of the literature. Journal of Reproductive Medicine and Endocrinology, 8(4), 281-287. https://www.kup.at/kup/pdf/10199.pdf