3 research outputs found
Enhancing users\u27 experiences with mobile app stores: What do users see? What should they see?
Using mobile applications is one of the daily habits for most smartphone users. In order to select applications, individuals need to explore the apps stores. Appsâ exploration is disturbed by the way of illustrating the applicationsâ information. This dissertation consists of three studies that aimed to: 1) Investigate the usersâ experience with the appsâ stores; 2) Collect the usersâ needs and requirements in order to have a better experience with the interface of appsâ stores; 3) Propose and evaluate a new interface design for the appsâ stores. Different types of data collection methods were administered while proceeding with the phases of this dissertation.
The first study was an exploratory study, which administered an online survey, where we had102 respondents. The second study, aimed to collect the design requirements, and we interviewed 16 individuals. The third study was the interface evaluation, where we also had 35 participants. Our results showed multiple factors that affect usersâ experience while discovering applications on the appsâ store. Our findings suggested that the current interface design of appsâ stores needs revisions to help users to be aware of appsâ emerging features and issues. Moreover, we found that visual cues that illustrate appsâ information would be more effective to help users perceive specific information about apps. Furthermore, visual indicators would enhance usersâ knowledge regarding some of the appsâ concerns. At the end of this research, we evaluated a proposed interface design that integrates the previous design recommendations. The evaluation results illustrated positive outputs in terms of usersâ satisfaction and task-completion rate. The findings indicated that participants were delighted to experience the new way of interaction with the interface of appsâ store. We anticipate that usersâ experience and their awareness towards the apps issue would be improved if appsâ stores considered adopting the proposed design concept
International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium report, data summary of 50 countries for 2010-2015: Device-associated module
âąWe report INICC device-associated module data of 50 countries from 2010-2015.âąWe collected prospective data from 861,284 patients in 703 ICUs for 3,506,562 days.âąDA-HAI rates and bacterial resistance were higher in the INICC ICUs than in CDC-NHSN's.âąDevice utilization ratio in the INICC ICUs was similar to CDC-NHSN's.
Background: We report the results of International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) surveillance study from January 2010-December 2015 in 703 intensive care units (ICUs) in Latin America, Europe, Eastern Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, and Western Pacific.
Methods: During the 6-year study period, using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC-NHSN) definitions for device-associated health care-associated infection (DA-HAI), we collected prospective data from 861,284 patients hospitalized in INICC hospital ICUs for an aggregate of 3,506,562 days.
Results: Although device use in INICC ICUs was similar to that reported from CDC-NHSN ICUs, DA-HAI rates were higher in the INICC ICUs: in the INICC medical-surgical ICUs, the pooled rate of central line-associated bloodstream infection, 4.1 per 1,000 central line-days, was nearly 5-fold higher than the 0.8 per 1,000 central line-days reported from comparable US ICUs, the overall rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia was also higher, 13.1 versus 0.9 per 1,000 ventilator-days, as was the rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection, 5.07 versus 1.7 per 1,000 catheter-days. From blood cultures samples, frequencies of resistance of Pseudomonas isolates to amikacin (29.87% vs 10%) and to imipenem (44.3% vs 26.1%), and of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates to ceftazidime (73.2% vs 28.8%) and to imipenem (43.27% vs 12.8%) were also higher in the INICC ICUs compared with CDC-NHSN ICUs.
Conclusions: Although DA-HAIs in INICC ICU patients continue to be higher than the rates reported in CDC-NSHN ICUs representing the developed world, we have observed a significant trend toward the reduction of DA-HAI rates in INICC ICUs as shown in each international report. It is INICC's main goal to continue facilitating education, training, and basic and cost-effective tools and resources, such as standardized forms and an online platform, to tackle this problem effectively and systematically
International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortiu (INICC) report, data summary of 43 countries for 2007-2012. Device-associated module
We report the results of an International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) surveillance study from January 2007-December 2012 in 503 intensive care units (ICUs) in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. During the 6-year study using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) U.S. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) definitions for device-associated health careâassociated infection (DA-HAI), we collected prospective data from 605,310 patients hospitalized in the INICC's ICUs for an aggregate of 3,338,396Â days. Although device utilization in the INICC's ICUs was similar to that reported from ICUs in the U.S. in the CDC's NHSN, rates of device-associated nosocomial infection were higher in the ICUs of the INICC hospitals: the pooled rate of central lineâassociated bloodstream infection in the INICC's ICUs, 4.9 per 1,000 central line days, is nearly 5-fold higher than the 0.9 per 1,000 central line days reported from comparable U.S. ICUs. The overall rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia was also higher (16.8 vs 1.1 per 1,000 ventilator days) as was the rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection (5.5 vs 1.3 per 1,000 catheter days). Frequencies of resistance of Pseudomonas isolates to amikacin (42.8% vs 10%) and imipenem (42.4% vs 26.1%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates to ceftazidime (71.2% vs 28.8%) and imipenem (19.6% vs 12.8%) were also higher in the INICC's ICUs compared with the ICUs of the CDC's NHSN