Summary of main findings
| Honeycomb | Finding |
| Usability | Rapid information provision. |
| Information as needed due to interactivity and multilayered structure. | |
| Highlighted core message. | |
| Content less understandable due to difficult terminology and scales. | |
| Usefulness | Innovative way of conveying clinical recommendations. |
| Rewarding provision of needed knowledge. | |
| Limited perceived applicability due to content defining population too narrow or broad. | |
| Less useful due to content not adapted to local guidelines. | |
| Not sufficient to persuade physicians to change practice on its own. | |
| Desirability | Importance of colours. Overuse can be confusing or distracting. |
| Uniformity in design is valued. | |
| Influence of font style on sense of importance. | |
| Findability | Quick and easy access if through the electronic health record (EHR). |
| Accessibility | More easily readable when interactive and expandable design. |
| Difficult to use when limited digital literacy. | |
| Credibility | Credible due to seeing a trustworthy source. |
| Trustworthy due to access through EHR. | |
| Even with an infographic, the concepts of weak recommendations and low quality of evidence remain difficult to understand. |