Applied Ergonomics

Personalised cutout saddle selection reduces perineal pain and improves cycling comfort in women with vulvar skin conditions

Perineal pain limits sitting and bicycling comfort in women with chronic vulvar conditions, reducing functional mobility and physical activity. This study evaluated personalised ergonomic saddle solutions to reduce perineal pain and restore cycling ability. Fifty women (age 57 ± 14 years) with lichen sclerosus, lichen planus, or vulvar cancer participated in a pre-post intervention study. In an outpatient living lab setting, participants evaluated four cutout saddle designs, received posture advice, selected a saddle, and tested it at home for 1-3 months. Outcomes included saddle pressure and centre-of-pressure metrics, trunk tilt, bicycling-related symptoms, quality of life, physical activity, user satisfaction, and personal goal achievement. A reference group of 50 healthy volunteers evaluated the saddles in the outpatient setting only. Pre-post cycling impediments (moderate or worse) decreased from 76.0% to 30.4% (p < 0.001), with marked reductions in perineal symptoms. Saddle design influenced centre-of-pressure location and variability, particularly in the anteroposterior direction. Seventy percent of participants achieved their personal bicycling goal. No changes were found in overall quality of life or physical activity. To conclude, personalised saddle selection reduces perineal pain and improves cycling ability in women with chronic vulvar conditions.

In what ways does user experience design improve printed educational materials?

We report on a series of four studies that investigated how user experience design (UXD) can improve printed educational materials (PEMs). We examined the perceived usability of an existing PEM for breast cancer screening and observed the usability problems associated with it (Study 1). We then compared a breast cancer screening PEM created by user experience designers with two other breast cancer screening PEMS, finding that the PEM based on UXD had higher perceived usability, and lower mentions of usability problems, than the other two PEMs (Study 2). We next examined the impact of individual differences in design expertise on perceived usability, this time including a PEM on cervical cancer screening as well as one on breast cancer screening (Study 3). Our concluding study (Study 4) then examined the impacts of UXD on learnability of PEM content as defined by answers to a knowledge questionnaire about screening administered before and after reading the PEM, and by intention to screen for cancer after reading the PEM. The first three studies showed that the involvement of UXD improved the perceived usability of PEMs, and Study 3 showed that designers differ in their ability to create useable PEMs. Study 4 failed to find a corresponding improvement in learnability or intention to screen when UXD was used to improve perceived usability. We conclude that a user experience design approach that incorporates graphic design can improve the perceived usability of PEMs in some situations (e.g., when the PEM material is not too lengthy or complex, and when the graphic designer is sufficiently skilled). However, we found no evidence that lack of perceived usability accounted for the failure of PEMS (found in previous research) to improve knowledge or intention to screen.