Rectal cancer is common and accounts for more than one-third of colorectal tumors. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Previously computed tomography scan is the key imaging modality in preoperative assessment to detect local invasion and distant metastasis. However, the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has aided in local staging and prognosticates the outcome of rectal tumor. Here, the author briefly explains why rectal MRI has a comprehensive role and provides a simple and easy way in reporting an MRI rectal carcinoma, even for a non-radiologist.
Background Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) safety screening is a crucial procedure for patient preparation before entering into MRI room. Many hospitals in Malaysia are still using the MRI safety checklist printed form. Besides, clinicians will not get a definite conclusion about whether the patient is contraindicated for MRI or not. Hence, we have created one mobile application named MagnetoSafe to overcome this issue. The application will provide an instant decision on whether the patient has no contraindication, relative contraindication, or absolute contraindicated for MRI. We need to check for acceptability and user experience for any newly created mobile application. Objective This study was designed to check the validity of the adapted Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and System Usability Scale (SUS) Questionnaire. Method The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were investigated. Subsequently, 52 fully completed responses were collected. Results Face and content validity of the questionnaires are considered acceptable with only minor changes to Item 10 of SUS. The Cronbach's alpha for the SUS questionnaire (10 questions) is -0.49, which is not acceptable. The Cronbach's alpha for TAM questionnaire (3 domains; 14 questions) is acceptable, which is 0.910 for perceived usefulness, 0.843 for perceived ease of use, and 0.915 for intention to use. Conclusion Face validity of the adapted SUS and modified TAM questionnaires is acceptable with only minor changes to Item 10 in SUS. Content validity with experts is good. However, the reliability of the SUS questionnaire is not acceptable and therefore adapted SUS will not be used for assessing user experience. The reliability of the modified TAM questionnaire with the original three-factor structure is considered acceptable and can be used to evaluate the user's acceptability of MagnetoSafe.