Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Usability testing evaluates outcome measure collection in lower limb amputees and clinicians, highlighting digital advantages.
Evidence-based clinical care and outcomes research are essential for developing objectively based standards of practice in prosthetic and orthotic care. Traditionally, outcome measures have been collected using paper-based methods. However, digital collection of these measures may offer several advantages. The COMET© (Clinical Outcome Measures Electronic Toolkit) mobile app was developed to facilitate the assessment of commonly used patient-reported and performance-based outcome measures in prosthetics and orthotics. The usability of the COMET app was evaluated among 15 individuals with lower limb amputation and nine clinicians using the System Usability Scale (SUS). The mean SUS score among individuals with lower limb amputation was 84 ± 12 (Grade: A; Percentile: 90–95; Adjective: Excellent; Acceptable), and the mean SUS score among the clinicians was 80 ± 14 (Grade: A-; Percentile: 85–89; Adjective: Good; Acceptable). There were no significant differences in SUS score between the two groups, indicating that the app was acceptable to both groups of participants in clinical settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kobayashi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: