Keywords
Surveillance
Veterinary
How to Cite
Copyright © | All rights reserved.
The journal holds the exclusive copyright for the publication of this article under the terms of Brazilian law 9610/98.
Partial reproduction
The use of parts of the texts, figures and questionnaire of the article is free, being mandatory the citation of the authors and journal.
Total reproduction
It is expressly prohibited and must be authorized by the journal.
Abstract
Objective: Carry out a field test to evaluate the “CREPER” application (Epidemiological risk calculator for rural properties and establishments). Methods: This is a field study, survey type, with cross-sectional technological evaluation, descriptive design and quantitative approach, conducted with eight employees of the official veterinary service of the state of Maranhão, of both sexes and over 30 years of age. Previous training was provided for use of the tool and field testing was carried out to evaluate its functionalities, usability and level of satisfaction. A questionnaire was applied via Google Forms to obtain the data analyzed by descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation). For grading and classification of the results, the Likert Scale and System Usability Scale (SUS) were used, respectively. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee. Results: The evaluators were over 30 years old and had a minimum of five years of professional experience. The functionality obtained an average score of 60.63 (SD ±1.16; minimum 60 and maximum 62.5), considered “Average”, gradual “D”, “Good”. Usability obtained an average SUS score of 92.19 (SD ±6.04; minimum 65 and maximum 80) considered “Acceptable”, gradual “A”, “Best imaginable”. Conclusion: The application was considered acceptable as an auxiliary tool in animal epidemiological surveillance.
References
AUGUSTO EA. Aplicativo móvel para registro de atendimento hospitalar (APH) em tempo real Dissertação de Mestrado (Mestrado em Enfermagem). Faculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto, São José do Rio Preto, 2019; 107.
BANGOR A, et al. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J User Experience. 2009; 4(3): 114-123.
CAMERON AR. The consequences of risk-based surveillance: developing output-based standards for surveillance to demonstrate freedom from disease. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 2012; 5(4): 280-6.
CASTILLA R, et al. Digital government: mobile applications and their impact on access to public information. SoftwareX, 2023; 22: 101382.
CHUA JYX e SHOREY S. Effectiveness of mobile application-based perinatal interventions in improving parenting outcomes: a systematic review. Midwifery, 2022; 114: 103457.
COSTA EM, et al. Análise da usabilidade de portais de comércio eletrônico brasileiros. Tekhne e Logos, 2013; 4: 87-110.
FERREIRA SB e LEITE JC. Avaliação da usabilidade em sistemas de informação: o caso do Sistema Submarino. RAC, 2003; 7: 115-136.
GAGNON J, et al. Self-supporting wound care mobile applications for nurses: a scoping review protocol. J Tissue Viability, 2023; 32: 79-84.
KIM MS, et al. From customers’ fingertips to employees’ well-being: the impact of mobile application ordering from a job demand-resource perspective. Tourism Management, 2023; 96: 104695.
KRONBAUER AH. Um modelo de avaliação de usabilidade de aplicativos para smartphones baseado na captura automática de interações com o usuário. Tese de Doutorado (Doutorado em Ciência da Computação) – Universidade Federal da Bahia, Universidade Salvador, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Salvador, 2013; 248.
LEWIS JR e SAURO J. Item benchmarks for the System Usability Scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 2018, 13(3): 158-167.
LIKERT RA. Technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 1932; 22(140): 44-53.
MARANHÃO. Agência Estadual de Defesa Agropecuária do Maranhão. POP CDA/SEE N° 001/08: Procedimento operacional padrão para análise de risco e monitoramento dos possíveis pontos de introdução e/ou disseminação de doenças vesiculares e das propriedades pecuárias sob maior risco epidemiológico. São Luís: AGED/MA, 2008. Ed. 1, Revisão 3 (2017), 46p. (Caderno de Manuais Operacionais).
MEDEIROS MA. ISO 9241: uma proposta de utilização da norma para avaliação do grau de satisfação de usuários de software. Dissertação de Mestrado (Mestrado em Engenharia de Produção). Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, 1999; 159.
MEURENS F, et al. Animal board invited review: Risks of zoonotic disease emergence at the interface of wildlife and livestock systems. Animal, 2021; 15(6): 100241.
NIELSEN J e LANDAUER TK. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. CHI’93: Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1993: 206-13.
NIELSEN J. Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. Proc. ACM CHI'94 Conf. (Boston, MA, April 24-28). 1994; 152-8.
PRATES RO e BARBOSA SD. Avaliação de interfaces de usuário – conceitos e métodos. In: Anais do XXIII Congresso Nacional da Sociedade Brasileira de Computação. XXII Jornadas de atualização em informática (JAI). SBC 2003; 6: 28.
RODRÍGUEZ-PRIETO V, et al. Systematic review of surveillance systems and methods for early detection of exotic, new and re-emerging diseases in animal populations. Epidemiology & Infection, 2015; 143: 2018–42.
SIN AK, et al. Evaluation of Wearable Device for the Elderly (W-Emas). In: Badioze Zaman H., et al. Advances in Visual Informatics (IVIC 2015), 2015; 9429: 119-131.
SONG C, et al. Collection of patient-generated health data with a mobile application and transfer to hospital information system via QR codes. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, 2023; 3: 100099.
TENÓRIO JM, et al. Desenvolvimento e avaliação de um protocolo eletrônico para atendimento e monitoramento do paciente com doença celíaca. RITA, 2010; 17(2): 201-20.
TUENA C, et al. Usability of an embodied CAVE system for spatial navigation training in mild cognitive impairment. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2023; 12(5): 1949.