Skip to main content

Table 7 System usability scale (SUS) scores of the traditional systematic review format

From: Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study

 

Mean a (SD)

Statement

Traditional Format

HCMs

(n = 5)

PMs

(n = 6)

I think that I would like to use this document frequently

3.6 (0.6)

2.8 (1.2)

I found this document unnecessarily complex

3.4 (1.3)

3.2 (1.0)

I thought this document was easy to use

2.6 (1.3)

3.0 (1.1)

I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this document

2.0 (0.7)

2.2 (1.6)

I found the various functions of this document (ex: the tables, boxes, graphics, etc.) were very well integrated

2.6 (0.9)

3.0 (1.6)

I thought there was too much inconsistency in the format of this document

2.2 (0.5)

3.3 (0.5)

I would imagine that most people would learn to use this document very quickly

2.4 (0.9)

2.7 (1.2)

I found this document very cumbersome to use

3.0 (1.0)

3.0 (1.1)

I felt very confident using this document

4.0 (1.2)

3.5 (1.2)

I need to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this document

2.4 (1.1)

2.0 (1.1)

Calculated Score

55.5 (16.5)

55.8 (20.8)

  1. aScoring based on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. At least 5 items were reversed coded in order to calculate the mean