Government Technology

    Digital Communities
    Industry Members

  • Click sponsor logos for whitepapers, case studies, and best practices.
  • McAfee

Google Health vs. Microsoft HealthVault Compared



February 3, 2009 By

User experience research firm User Centric Inc. recently conducted an independent comparative usability study of two existing online personal health record (PHR) applications, Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault. (Neither Google nor Microsoft commissioned or participated in this study in any manner.) While participants' overall evaluations were certainly influenced by features, security, privacy and trust, it is critical to note that their major difficulties with both applications -- and their strongest criticisms -- were related to the user experience.

During this study, 30 participants representing patients completed key tasks using both PHR applications and provided qualitative feedback, ratings and preference data on five specific dimensions: Overall usability, utility (usefulness of features), security, privacy and trust. Participants were generally new to the concept of PHR applications. During the study, they completed seven tasks using both the Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault applications which included three application-specific tasks that explored each application's unique features.

Overall, User Centric's comparative study found neither Google Health nor Microsoft HealthVault were perfect applications; each had flaws in the user experience which were seen to reduce participants' willingness to adopt PHR technology. However, participants preferred Google Health over Microsoft HealthVault because navigation and data entry of health information was easier than on the other application. Participants said that the Google Health application used more familiar medical terminology and provided a persistent health information profile summary.

While there is a great more to be learned in this domain, leveraging actual user feedback and experience continues to be an essential step in improving PHRs and increasing the rate of PHR adoption.

Based on this usability study, User Centric has identified several guidelines to be included in a working model for PHR interfaces that facilitates user adoption.


| More

Comments

Add Your Comment

You are solely responsible for the content of your comments. We reserve the right to remove comments that are considered profane, vulgar, obscene, factually inaccurate, off-topic, or considered a personal attack.

In Our Library

White Papers | Exclusives Reports | Webinar Archives | Best Practices and Case Studies
Digital Cities & Counties Survey: Best Practices Quick Reference Guide
This Best Practices Quick Reference Guide is a compilation of examples from the 2013 Digital Cities and Counties Surveys showcasing the innovative ways local governments are using technological tools to respond to the needs of their communities. It is our hope that by calling attention to just a few examples from cities and counties of all sizes, we will encourage further collaboration and spark additional creativity in local government service delivery.
Wireless Reporting Takes Pain (& Wait) out of Voting
In Michigan and Minnesota counties, wireless voting via the AT&T network has brought speed, efficiency and accuracy to elections - another illustration of how mobility and machine-to-machine (M2M) technology help governments to bring superior services and communication to constituents.
Why Would a City Proclaim Their Data “Open by Default?”
The City of Palo Alto, California, a 2013 Center for Digital Government Digital City Survey winner, has officially proclaimed “open” to be the default setting for all city data. Are they courageous or crazy?
View All