Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Software

Health figures: an open source JavaScript library for health data visualization

Authors: Andres Ledesma, Mohammed Al-Musawi, Hannu Nieminen

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The way we look at data has a great impact on how we can understand it, particularly when the data is related to health and wellness. Due to the increased use of self-tracking devices and the ongoing shift towards preventive medicine, better understanding of our health data is an important part of improving the general welfare of the citizens. Electronic Health Records, self-tracking devices and mobile applications provide a rich variety of data but it often becomes difficult to understand. We implemented the hFigures library inspired on the hGraph visualization with additional improvements. The purpose of the library is to provide a visual representation of the evolution of health measurements in a complete and useful manner.

Results

We researched the usefulness and usability of the library by building an application for health data visualization in a health coaching program. We performed a user evaluation with Heuristic Evaluation, Controlled User Testing and Usability Questionnaires. In the Heuristics Evaluation the average response was 6.3 out of 7 points and the Cognitive Walkthrough done by usability experts indicated no design or mismatch errors. In the CSUQ usability test the system obtained an average score of 6.13 out of 7, and in the ASQ usability test the overall satisfaction score was 6.64 out of 7.

Conclusions

We developed hFigures, an open source library for visualizing a complete, accurate and normalized graphical representation of health data. The idea is based on the concept of the hGraph but it provides additional key features, including a comparison of multiple health measurements over time. We conducted a usability evaluation of the library as a key component of an application for health and wellness monitoring. The results indicate that the data visualization library was helpful in assisting users in understanding health data and its evolution over time.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Hood L, Flores M. A personal view on systems medicine and the emergence of proactive {P4} medicine: predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory. New Biotechnol. 2012; 29(6):613–624. doi:10.​1016/​j.​nbt.​2012.​03.​004. Molecular Diagnostics and Personalised Medicine.CrossRef
2.
Lesselroth BJ, Pieczkiewicz DS. Data visualization strategies for the electronic health record In: Berhardt LV, editor. Advances in Medicine and Biology, vol. 16. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc: 2012. p. 107–40.
3.
4.
Ledesma A, Nieminen H, Valve P, Ermes M, Jimison H, Pavel M. The shape of health: A comparison of five alternative ways of visualizing personal health and wellbeing. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE: 2015, doi:10.​13140/​RG.​2.​1.​1321.​6725.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Idris M, Hussain S, Ahmad M, Lee S. Big data service engine (bise): Integration of big data technologies for human centric wellness data. In: Big Data and Smart Computing (BigComp), 2015 International Conference On: 2015. p. 244–248, doi:10.​1109/​35021BIGCOMP.​2015.​7072838.
9.
Few S. Information Dashboard Design. North Sebastopol: O’Reilly; 2006.
10.
11.
de Ridder M, Constantinescu L, Bi L, Jung YH, Kumar A, Kim J, Feng DD, Fulham M. A web-based medical multimedia visualisation interface for personal health records. In: Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS), 2013 IEEE 26th International Symposium On. Porto, Portugal: IEEE: 2013. p. 191–196.
12.
Shneiderman B, Plaisant C, Hesse BW. Improving health and healthcare with interactive visualization methods. Technical report, Citeseer. 2013.
13.
Baird JC, Noma EJ. Fundamentals of Scaling and Psychophysics. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Canada, Limited; 1978.
14.
Cleveland W, McGill R. Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984; 79(387):531–554.CrossRef
15.
Hoffman P, Grinstein G, Marx K, Grosse I, Stanley E. Dna visual and analytic data mining. In: Visualization’97., Proceedings. Phoenix, Arizona (AZ), USA: IEEE: 1997. p. 437–441.
16.
Draper GM, Livnat Y, Riesenfeld RF. A survey of radial methods for information visualization. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2009; 15(5):759–76.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Jankun-Kelly T, Ma KL. Moiregraphs: Radial focus+ context visualization and interaction for graphs with visual nodes. In: Information Visualization, 2003. INFOVIS 2003. IEEE Symposium On. Seattle, Washington (WA), USA: IEEE: 2003. p. 59–66.
18.
Lamping J, Rao R. The hyperbolic browser: A focus+ context technique for visualizing large hierarchies. J Vis Lang Comput. 1996; 7(1):33–55.CrossRef
19.
Hetzler B, Whitney P, Martucci L, Thomas J. Multi-faceted insight through interoperable visual information analysis paradigms. In: Information Visualization, 1998. Proceedings. IEEE Symposium On. Research Triangle, California (CA), USA: IEEE: 1998. p. 137–44.
20.
Spence R. Information visualization. New York: ACM Press; 2001, pp. 85–88.
21.
Yang J, Ward MO, Rundensteiner E, et al.Interring: An interactive tool for visually navigating and manipulating hierarchical structures. In: Information Visualization, 2002. INFOVIS 2002. IEEE Symposium On. Boston Massachusetts (MA), USA: IEEE: 2002. p. 77–84.
22.
23.
Carlis JV, Konstan JA. Interactive visualization of serial periodic data. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. San Francisco, California (CA), USA: ACM: 1998. p. 29–38.
24.
Spoerri A. Rankspiral: Toward enhancing search results visualizations. In: Information Visualization, 2004. INFOVIS 2004. IEEE Symposium On. Austin, Texas (TX), USA: IEEE: 2004. p. 18–18.
25.
Hong JY, D’Andries J, Richman M, Westfall M. Zoomology: comparing two large hierarchical trees. In: Poster Compendium of the IEEE Symposium of Information Visualization (InfoVis). Seattle, Washington (WA), USA: IEEE: 2003. p. 120–121.
26.
Krzywinski M, Schein J, Birol I, Connors J, Gascoyne R, Horsman D, Jones SJ, Marra MA. Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Res. 2009; 19(9):1639–1645.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Draper GM, Riesenfeld RF. Who votes for what? a visual query language for opinion data. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2008; 14(6):1197–1204.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Bostock M, Ogievetsky V, Heer J. D 3 data-driven documents. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2011; 17(12):2301–2309.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Chris N. Toward measuring visualization insight. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2006; 26(3):6–9.CrossRef
30.
Saraiya P, North C, Duca K. An evaluation of microarray visualization tools for biological insight. In: Information Visualization, 2004. INFOVIS 2004. IEEE Symposium On. Austin, Texas (TX), USA: IEEE: 2004. p. 1–8.
31.
Roebuck K. Agile Software Development: High-impact Strategies-What You Need to Know: Definitions, Adoptions, Impact, Benefits, Maturity, Vendors. Brisbane: Emereo Publishing; 2012.
32.
Beck K. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional; 2000.
33.
Poutanen O, Koivisto AM, Kääriä S, Salokangas RK. The validity of the depression scale (deps) to assess the severity of depression in primary care patients. Fam Pract. 2010; 27(5):527–534.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Nielsen J. Usability Engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1994.
36.
37.
38.
Wharton C, Rieman J, Lewis C, Polson P. The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner’s guide. In: Usability Inspection Methods. Hoboken, New Jersey (NJ), USA: Wiley: 1994. p. 105–40.
39.
Peute LW, Jaspers MW. The significance of a usability evaluation of an emerging laboratory order entry system. Int J Med Inform. 2007; 76(2):157–68.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Karahoca A, Bayraktar E, Tatoglu E, Karahoca D. Information system design for a hospital emergency department: A usability analysis of software prototypes. J Biomed Inform. 2010; 43(2):224–32.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Cohen T, Kaufman D, White T, Segal G, Staub AB, Patel V, Finnerty M. Cognitive evaluation of an innovative psychiatric clinical knowledge enhancement system. Medinfo. 2004; 11(Pt 2):1295–9.
42.
Khajouei R, de Jongh D, Jaspers MW. Usability evaluation of a computerized physician order entry for medication ordering. In: Medical Informatics Europe (MIE). Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina: 2009. p. 532–536.
43.
Blackmon MH, Polson PG, Kitajima M, Lewis C. Cognitive walkthrough for the web. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM: 2002. p. 463–470.
44.
Sears A. Heuristic walkthroughs: Finding the problems without the noise. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 1997; 9(3):213–234.CrossRef
45.
Beuscart-Zéphir MC, Elkin P, Pelayo S, Beuscart R, et al.The human factors engineering approach to biomedical informatics projects: state of the art, results, benefits and challenges. IMIA Yearb. 2007; 2:109–127.
46.
Newman WM. 10. on simulation, measurement, and pfeeewiaie usability evaluation. Comment Damaged Merch. 1998; 13:316.
47.
Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Verbal reports as data. Psychol Rev. 1980; 87(3):215.CrossRef
48.
Borycki EM, Lemieux-Charles L, Nagle L, Eysenbach G. Novice nurse information needs in paper and hybrid electronic-paper environments: a qualitative analysis. In: Medical Informatics Europe (MIE). Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina: 2009. p. 913–917.
49.
Currie LM, Graham M, Allen M, Bakken S, Patel V, Cimino JJ. Clinical information needs in context: an observational study of clinicians while using a clinical information system. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, vol. 2003. Washington DC, USA: American Medical Informatics Association: 2003. p. 190.
50.
Hasman A, et al.Development of methods for usability evaluations of ehr systems. In: Ubiquity: Technologies for Better Health in Aging Societies: Proceedings of MIE2006, vol. 124 IOS Press. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Medical Informatics Europe: 2006. p. 341.
51.
Wu RC, Orr MS, Chignell M, Straus SE. Usability of a mobile electronic medical record prototype: a verbal protocol analysis. Inform Health Soc Care. 2008; 33(2):139–49.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Lewis JR. Ibm computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 1995; 7(1):57–78.CrossRef
53.
Lewis JR. Psychometric evaluation of the post-study system usability questionnaire: The pssuq. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 36. Thousand Oaks, California (CA), USA: SAGE Publications: 1992. p. 1259–1260.
54.
Jaspers MW, Peute LW, Lauteslager A, Bakker PJ. Pre-post evaluation of physicians’ satisfaction with a redesigned electronic medical record system. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008; 136:303.PubMed
55.
Goud R, Jaspers MW, Hasman A, Peek N. Subjective usability of the cardss guideline-based decision support system. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008; 136:193.PubMed
56.
Lewis JR. Psychometric evaluation of an after-scenario questionnaire for computer usability studies: the asq. ACM SIGCHI Bull. 1991; 23(1):78–81.CrossRef
57.
Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2008; 24(6):574–594.CrossRef
58.
59.
Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Physical activity guidelines advisory committee report, 2008. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. 2008; 2008:5.
60.
61.
62.
Laukkanen R, Oja P, Pasanen M, Vuori I. Validity of a two kilometre walking test for estimating maximal aerobic power in overweight adults. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord: J Int Assoc Study Obesity. 1992; 16(4):263–268.
63.
64.
65.
Teisala T, Mutikainen S, Tolvanen A, Rottensteiner M, Leskinen T, Kaprio J, Kolehmainen M, Rusko H, Kujala UM. Associations of physical activity, fitness, and body composition with heart rate variability-based indicators of stress and recovery on workdays: a cross-sectional study. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2014; 34:26–40.
66.
Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges MW. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the life orientation test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994; 67(6):1063.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Faulkner L. Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003; 35(3):379–383.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Berry DL, Halpenny B, Bosco JL, Bruyere J, Sanda MG. Usability evaluation and adaptation of the e-health personal patient profile-prostate decision aid for spanish-speaking latino men. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015; 15(1):56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
69.
Zhang J, Johnson TR, Patel VL, Paige DL, Kubose T. Using usability heuristics to evaluate patient safety of medical devices. J Biomed Inform. 2003; 36(1):23–30.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Shneiderman B. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-computer Interaction, vol. 3. Boston: Addison-Wesley Reading, MA; 1992.
71.
Molich R, Nielsen J. Improving a human-computer dialogue. Commun ACM. 1990; 33(3):338–348.CrossRef
72.
73.
74.
Lewis JR. Psychometric evaluation of the pssuq using data from five years of usability studies. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2002; 14(3-4):463–488.CrossRef
75.
Allen S. Aight – JavaScript Shims and Shams for Making IE8-9 Behave Reasonably.
76.
Rind A, Wang TD, Wolfgang A, Miksch S, Wongsuphasawat K, Plaisant C, Shneiderman B. Interactive information visualization to explore and query electronic health records. Found Trends Hum Comput Interact. 2011; 5(3):207–298.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Health figures: an open source JavaScript library for health data visualization
Authors
Andres Ledesma
Mohammed Al-Musawi
Hannu Nieminen
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0275-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Data extraction from electronic health records (EHRs) for quality measurement of the physical therapy process: comparison between EHR data and survey data

Erratum

Erratum to: Archetype relational mapping - a practical openEHR persistence solution

Research article

Critical factors influencing physicians’ intention to use computerized clinical practice guidelines: an integrative model of activity theory and the technology acceptance model

Research article

Knowledge transfer: what drug information would specialist doctors need to support their clinical practice? Results of a survey and of three focus groups in Italy

Erratum

Erratum to: Development of a decision analytic model to support decision making and risk communication about thrombolytic treatment

Research article

A survey-based study of factors that motivate nurses to protect the privacy of electronic medical records