CoDAS
https://codas.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/2317-1782/20232022026
CoDAS
Original Article

Web version of the protocol of the orofacial myofunctional evaluation with scores: usability and learning

Maria Carolina Gironde Ataide; Filipe Andrade Bernardi; Paulo Mazzoncini de Azevedo Marques; Cláudia Maria de Felício

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20232022026 CoDAS, vol.35, n2, e20220026, 2023
PDF
PDF
SciELO
Downloads: 1
Views: 600

Abstract

Purpose

The Orofacial Myofunctional Evaluation with Scores (OMES) protocol has been validated and used in clinical practice and research. The goals of this study were to develop, analyze and improve a version of OMES for the Web and to investigate the relationship between the usability judgments and the prior experience of the evaluators and whether using the interface promotes learning, as shown by the task completion time (TCT).

Methods

Study steps: 1) inspection of the prototype by the team; 2) evaluation of usability by three experienced speech-language pathologists (SLPs); and 3) evaluation of its usability by 12 SLPs with varying levels of experience in the use of OMES. Participants answered the Heuristic evaluation (HE), the Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ), and expressed free comments. The TCT was recorded.

Results

The OMES-Web reached excellent usability levels, and the participants were highly satisfied. The correlations between the participants’ experience and the HE and CSUQ scores were not significant. The TCT decreased significantly throughout the tasks.

Conclusion

OMES-Web meets the usability criteria, and participants feel satisfied with the system regardless of their level of experience. The fact that it is easy to learn favors its adoption by professionals.

Keywords

Electronic Health Records; User-Computer Interface; Speech; Language and Hearing Sciences; Stomatognathic System; Software Validation

Referencias

  1. Felício CM, Medeiros APM, Melchior MD. Validity of the ‘protocol of oro-facial myofunctional evaluation with scores’ for young and adult subjects. J Oral Rehabil. 2012;39(10):744-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2012.02336.x PMid:22852833.
  2. Felício CM, Ferreira CLP. Protocol of orofacial myofunctional evaluation with scores. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;72(3):367-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2007.11.012 PMid:18187209.
  3. Machado BCZ, Mazzetto MO, Silva M, Felício CM. Effects of oral motor exercises and laser therapy on chronic temporomandibular disorders: a randomized study with follow-up. Lasers Med Sci. 2016;31(5):945-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10103-016-1935-6 PMid:27085322.
  4. Ercolin B, Sassi FC, Mangilli LD, Mendonca LIZ, Limongi SCO, de Andrade CRF. Oral motor movements and swallowing in patients with Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1. Dysphagia. 2013;28(3):446-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00455-013-9458-9 PMid:23460343.
  5. Felício CM, Dias FVD, Folha GA, Almeida LA, Souza JF, Anselmo-Lima WT, et al. Orofacial motor functions in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea and implications for myofunctional therapy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;90:5-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.08.019 PMid:27729152.
  6. Lima ACD, Albuquerque RC, Cunha DAD, Lima CDA, Lima SJH, Silva HJD. Relation of sensory processing and stomatognical system of oral respiratory children. CoDAS. 2021;34(2):e20200251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20212020251 PMid:34705997.
  7. Martinez CC, Tonon T, Nalin T, Refosco LF, Souza CFM, Schwartz IVD. Feeding difficulties and orofacial myofunctional disorder in patients with hepatic glycogen storage diseases. JIMD Rep. 2018;45:21-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/8904_2018_131 PMid:30242630.
  8. Begnoni G, Dellavia C, Pellegrini G, Scarponi L, Schindler A, Pizzorni N. The efficacy of myofunctional therapy in patients with atypical swallowing. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;277(9):2501-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-05994-w PMid:32367149.
  9. Ibrahim AF, Salem EE, Gomaa NE, Abdelazeim FH. The effect of incentive spirometer training on oromotor and pulmonary functions in children with Down’s syndrome. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2019;14(5):405-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2019.09.004 PMid:31728137.
  10. Lima V, Grecco LAC, Marques VC, Fregni F, Avila CRB. Transcranial direct current stimulation combined with integrative speech therapy in a child with cerebral palsy: a case report. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2016;20(2):252-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.03.007 PMid:27210840.
  11. Melchior MD, Machado BCZ, Magri LV, Mazzetto MO. Effect of speech-language therapy after low-level laser therapy in patients with TMD: a descriptive study. CoDAS. 2016;28(6):818-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20162015099 PMid:28001273.
  12. Mozzanica F, Pizzorni N, Scarponi L, Crimi G, Schindler A. Impact of oral myofunctional therapy on orofacial myofunctional status and tongue strength in patients with tongue thrust. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2021;73(5):413-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000510908 PMid:33113529.
  13. Portalete CR, Urrutia GAU, Pagliarin KC, Keske-Soares M. Motor speech treatment in flaccid dysarthria: a case report. Audiol Commun Res. 2019;24:e2118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2018-2118
  14. Scarponi L, Felício CM, Sforza C, Pimenta Ferreira CL, Ginocchio D, Pizzorni N, et al. Reliability and validity of the italian version of the Protocol of Orofacial Myofunctional Evaluation with Scores (I-OMES). Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2018;70(1):8-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000488027 PMid:29847818.
  15. WHO: World Health Organization. Building foundations for eHealth: progress of member states: report of the Global Observatory for eHealth [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2006 [cited 2022 Feb 1]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43599
  16. Felício CM, Folha GA, Gaido AS, Dantas MMM, Azevedo-Marques PM. Computerized protocol of orofacial myofunctional evaluation with scores: usability and validity. CoDAS. 2014;26(4):322-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/201420140021 PMid:25211692.
  17. Santos C, Amaral AKFJ, Soares JFR. Software for myofunctional classification in clinical speech. J Health Inform [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Feb 1];8:157-63. Available from: http://www.jhi-sbis.saude.ws/ojs-jhi/index.php/jhisbis/article/viewFile/427/294
  18. Lewis JR. IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires - psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 1995;7(1):57-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447319509526110
  19. Maramba I, Chatterjee A, Newman C. Methods of usability testing in the development of eHealth applications: A scoping review. Int J Med Inform. 2019;126:95-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.03.018 PMid:31029270.
  20. Nielsen J. Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen J, Mack RL, editors. Usability inspection methods. 1st ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1994. p. 25-64.
  21. ISO: International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9241-11:2018: ergonomics of human-system interaction — part 11: usability: definitions and concepts. Geneva: ISO; 2018.
  22. Leff A, Rayfield JT. Web-application development using the Model/View/Controller design pattern. In: Fifth IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference; 2001; Seattle, WA, USA. Proceedings. New York: IEEE; 2001. p. 118-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EDOC.2001.950428
  23. Broekhuis M, van Velsen L, Hermens H. Assessing usability of eHealth technology: a comparison of usability benchmarking instruments. Int J Med Inform. 2019;128:24-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.05.001 PMid:31160008.
  24. Fazzino TL, Martin CK, Forbush K. The remote food photography method and smartIntake app for the assessment of alcohol use in young adults: feasibility study and comparison to standard assessment methodology. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6(9):e10460. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/10460 PMid:30249590.
  25. Couture B, Lilley E, Chang F, DeBord Smith A, Cleveland J, Ergai A, et al. Applying user-centered design methods to the development of an mHealth application for use in the hospital setting by patients and care partners. Appl Clin Inform. 2018;9(2):302-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1645888 PMid:29742756.
  26. Watbled L, Marcilly R, Guerlinger S, Bastien J-MC, Beuscart-Zéphir M-C, Beuscart R. Combining usability evaluations to highlight the chain that leads from usability flaws to usage problems and then negative outcomes. J Biomed Inform. 2018;78:12-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2017.12.014 PMid:29305953.
  27. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Labrecque M, Car J, Pagliari C, Pluye P, et al. Systematic review of factors influencing the adoption of information and communication technologies by healthcare professionals. J Med Syst. 2012;36(1):241-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10916-010-9473-4 PMid:20703721.
  28. Jansen F, Coupé VMH, Eerenstein SEJ, Cnossen IC, van Uden-Kraan CF, de Bree R, et al. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of a guided self-help head and neck exercise program for patients treated with total laryngectomy: results of a multi-center randomized controlled trial. Oral Oncol. 2021;117:105306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2021.105306 PMid:33905913.
  29. De Cock E, Batens K, Feiken J, Hemelsoet D, Oostra K, De Herdt V. The feasibility, usability and acceptability of a tablet-based aphasia therapy in the acute phase following stroke. J Commun Disord. 2021;89:106070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2020.106070 PMid:33418143.
  30. Goswami U, Black A, Krohn B, Meyers W, Iber C. Smartphone-based delivery of oropharyngeal exercises for treatment of snoring: a randomized controlled trial. Sleep Breath. 2019;23(1):243-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11325-018-1690-y PMid:30032464.
6466e1a9a953956c8e6f4356 codas Articles
2317-1782 (Electrónico)
CoDAS ©2024 Todos los derechos reservados.

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections