Reviewing the User-Centered Design Process for a Comprehensive Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) App.

The objective of this study was to design a user-centered mobile health (mHealth) application for individuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and evaluate its design features and effectiveness for use by doctors. Prior to designing, our team undertook a discovery process that involved creating personas, conducting a competitor analysis and heuristic evaluation of existing apps, along with interviews with acid reflux patients. Then, we created a low-fidelity prototype, which was revised on the basis of several rounds of user testing. During the design phase, each round of user testing included a mix of surveys, concurrent think-alouds, and interviews to gather user feedback on the prototypes. Lastly, an evaluation phase consisting of gathering feedback on the user-centered design approach from user experience experts and medical doctors specialized in GERD was conducted. Overall, the final GERD app includes important features for tracking symptoms and triggers, analytics, data export, and community information, while promoting individualization, accessibility, and usability. The documentation of the design process of this app serves as a reference point for future medical app developers as it followed an empirically supported user-centered design strategy and resulted in an app which received positive feedback from users and human factors experts. We also intend to share some of the limitations due to the constrained resources, as well as potential ways to strengthen the design process for mHealth applications.

A comparison of two military temporary femoral external fixators.

Temporary external fixation of femur fractures, used at civilian trauma centers for patients who cannot tolerate more extensive procedures, also is planned for use in military field hospitals to provide temporary stabilization and allow for safe transport of a patient to the next level of care. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate three constructs: an external fixator made by one manufacturer and two Hoffman II constructs: uniplanar and biplanar. The study consisted of two parts: a biomechanical study of each of the three constructs and the application of each of the two Hoffmann II constructs to separate cadaver thighs by resident surgeons. Five resident surgeons participated in the study using five pairs of cadaver thighs. The biplanar construct was stiffer in axial and torsional stability when compared with the uniplanar construct. There was no difference in the amount of time needed to apply the constructs nor was either construct found to be subjectively easier to apply by the surgeons. There was an increased number of unicortical pins and plunges (when a pin inadvertently slips over the side) with the uniplanar construct when compared with the biplanar. The biplanar construct is biomechanically more stable and appears to allow for more accurate placement of pins.