Wearable robotic devices (WRD) are still struggling to fulfill their vast potential. Inadequate daily life usability is one of the main hindrances to increased technology acceptance. Improving usability evaluation practices during the development of WRD could help address these limitations. In this work, we present the design and validation of a novel online platform aiming to fill this gap, the Interactive Usability Toolbox (IUT). This platform consists of a public website that offers an interactive, context-specific search within a database of 154 user research methods and educational information about usability. In a dedicated study, the effect of this platform to support usability evaluation was investigated. Twelve WRD experts were asked to complete the task of defining usability evaluation protocols for two specific use cases. The platform was provided to support one of the use cases. The quality and composition of the proposed protocols were assessed by (i) two blinded reviewers, (ii) the participants themselves, and (iii) the study coordinators. We showed that using the IUT significantly affected the proposed evaluation focus, shifting protocols from mainly effectiveness-oriented to more user-focused studies. The protocol quality, as rated by the external reviewers, remained equivalent to those designed with conventional strategies. A mixed-method usability evaluation of the platform yielded an overall positive image, with detailed suggestions for further improvements. The IUT is expected to positively affect the evaluation and development of WRD through its educational value, the context-specific recommendations supporting ongoing benchmarking endeavors, and highlighting the value of qualitative user research.

Objectives: Economic decision-support tools can provide valuable information for tobacco control stakeholders, but their usability may impact the adoption of such tools. This study aims to illustrate a mixed-method usability evaluation of an economic decision-support tool for tobacco control, using the EQUIPT ROI tool prototype as a case study.

Methods: A cross-sectional mixed methods design was used, including a heuristic evaluation, a thinking aloud approach, and a questionnaire testing and exploring the usability of the Return of Investment tool.

Results: A total of sixty-six users evaluated the tool (thinking aloud) and completed the questionnaire. For the heuristic evaluation, four experts evaluated the interface. In total twenty-one percent of the respondents perceived good usability. A total of 118 usability problems were identified, from which twenty-six problems were categorized as most severe, indicating high priority to fix them before implementation.

Conclusions: Combining user-based and expert-based evaluation methods is recommended as these were shown to identify unique usability problems. The evaluation provides input to optimize usability of a decision-support tool, and may serve as a vantage point for other developers to conduct usability evaluations to refine similar tools before wide-scale implementation. Such studies could reduce implementation gaps by optimizing usability, enhancing in turn the research impact of such interventions.