Currently submitted to: JMIR Human Factors
Date Submitted: Nov 12, 2025
Open Peer Review Period: Dec 1, 2025 - Jan 26, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Multicentre Usability Evaluation and Co-Development of a Digital Decision-Support Tool for Labour Triage: Mixed-Methods Study
ABSTRACT
Background:
Digital decision-support tools for labour care remain limited, with few technologies successfully addressing the complex, time-sensitive decisions required during labour triage. Fit4Labour is a clinician-facing, data-driven research tool, currently under development, that combines computerised cardiotocography interpretation with maternal and fetal risk factors to generate individualised risk scores at labour onset. Its primary aim is to support clinicians in identifying fetuses who may require closer monitoring or expedited delivery, while simultaneously providing reassurance in low-risk cases. By promoting consistent communication and timely escalation of care, Fit4Labour seeks to strengthen clinical decision-making. Understanding and addressing usability and implementation barriers will be critical to its adoption in clinical practice.
Objective:
To assess whether the Fit4Labour tool, developed through intensive co-development at a single hospital, maintains usability and implementation readiness when tested in hospitals with differing clinical contexts.
Methods:
We conducted a convergent parallel mixed-methods study in three UK hospitals (December 2022 to May 2025). Phase 1 involved iterative co-development with midwives and doctors at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Phase 2 validated the locked version at Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust and Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust. Midwives and doctors participated in scenario-based usability sessions evaluated with the System Usability Scale (SUS) and Single Ease Question (SEQ) and task completion time to assess efficiency, followed by focus groups and interviews analysed thematically.
Results:
Twenty-six healthcare professionals participated: 12 in co-development (seven midwives, five doctors) and 14 in validation (eight midwives, six doctors). There was an incremental improvement with validation sites having higher SUS scores (85.8 ± 10.2) for the locked version (v4.0) compared to the initial version (1.0) tested in Oxford (77.5 ± 15.1). Task efficiency improved by 16.9% (from a mean of 11.8 to 8 minutes) with a 28% reduction in performance variability, indicating consistent usability across sites. SEQ scores were consistently high (mean 6.1/7.0). Thematic analysis identified 12 themes within three domains: Clinical Integration and Workflow, Technology Adoption and Implementation, and Patient Safety and Decision-Making. Participants described the Fit4Labour tool as a supportive tool, “like a co-pilot”, improving confidence in their decisions with the potential to aid assessment and triage. Perceived limitations included an incomplete risk factor profile and the need for minor technical adjustments or integration with existing hospital systems to facilitate adoption.
Conclusions:
Through systematic co-development, the Fit4Labour tool demonstrated high usability and consistent performance across multiple hospitals, suggesting potential for integration into existing workflows with minimal local adaptation. Clinicians viewed the tool as a supportive aid that enhanced decision-making while preserving clinical autonomy. While further testing in clinical environments is needed, these findings demonstrate that intensive co-design can produce decision-support tools that transfer effectively across hospitals with differing clinical practices. Clinical Trial: NA
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.