0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Heuristics used for evaluating the usability of mobile health applications: A systematic literature review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Mobile health applications hold immense potential for enhancing health outcomes. Usability is one of the main factors for the adoption and use of mobile health applications. However, despite the growing importance of mHealth applications, clear standards for their evaluation remain elusive. The present study aimed to determine heuristics for the usability evaluation of health-related applications.

          Methods

          We systematically searched multiple databases for relevant papers published between January 2008 and April 2021. Articles were reviewed, and data were extracted and categorized from those meeting inclusion criteria by two authors independently. Heuristics were identified based on statements, words, and concepts expressed in the studies. These heuristics were first mapped to Nielsen's heuristics based on their differences or similarities. The remaining heuristics that were very important for mobile applications were categorized into new heuristics.

          Results

          Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria. Seventy-nine heuristics were extracted from the papers. After combining the items with the same concepts and removing irrelevant items based on the exclusion criteria, 20 heuristics remained. Common heuristics such as “Visibility of system status” and “Flexibility and efficiency of use” were categorized into 10 previously established heuristics and new heuristics like “Navigation” and “User engagement” were recognized as new ones.

          Conclusions

          In our study, we have meticulously identified 20 heuristics that hold promise for evaluating and designing mHealth applications. These heuristics can be used by the researchers for the development of robust tools for heuristic evaluation. These tools, when adapted or tailored for health domain applications, have the potential to significantly enhance the quality of mHealth applications. Ultimately, this improvement in quality translates to enhanced patient safety.

          Protocol Registration

          (10.17605/OSF.IO/PZJ7H)

          Related collections

          Most cited references103

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique.

          Consensus methods such as the Delphi survey technique are being employed to help enhance effective decision-making in health and social care. The Delphi survey is a group facilitation technique, which is an iterative multistage process, designed to transform opinion into group consensus. It is a flexible approach, that is used commonly within the health and social sciences, yet little guidance exists to help researchers undertake this method of data collection. This paper aims to provide an understanding of the preparation, action steps and difficulties that are inherent within the Delphi. Used systematically and rigorously, the Delphi can contribute significantly to broadening knowledge within the nursing profession. However, careful thought must be given before using the method; there are key issues surrounding problem identification, researcher skills and data presentation that must be addressed. The paper does not claim to be definitive; it purports to act as a guide for those researchers who wish to exploit the Delphi methodology.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement.

            Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD) aim to collect, check, and reanalyze individual-level data from all studies addressing a particular research question and are therefore considered a gold standard approach to evidence synthesis. They are likely to be used with increasing frequency as current initiatives to share clinical trial data gain momentum and may be particularly important in reviewing controversial therapeutic areas. To develop PRISMA-IPD as a stand-alone extension to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement, tailored to the specific requirements of reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD. Although developed primarily for reviews of randomized trials, many items will apply in other contexts, including reviews of diagnosis and prognosis. Development of PRISMA-IPD followed the EQUATOR Network framework guidance and used the existing standard PRISMA Statement as a starting point to draft additional relevant material. A web-based survey informed discussion at an international workshop that included researchers, clinicians, methodologists experienced in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD, and journal editors. The statement was drafted and iterative refinements were made by the project, advisory, and development groups. The PRISMA-IPD Development Group reached agreement on the PRISMA-IPD checklist and flow diagram by consensus. Compared with standard PRISMA, the PRISMA-IPD checklist includes 3 new items that address (1) methods of checking the integrity of the IPD (such as pattern of randomization, data consistency, baseline imbalance, and missing data), (2) reporting any important issues that emerge, and (3) exploring variation (such as whether certain types of individual benefit more from the intervention than others). A further additional item was created by reorganization of standard PRISMA items relating to interpreting results. Wording was modified in 23 items to reflect the IPD approach. PRISMA-IPD provides guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Mobile App Rating Scale: A New Tool for Assessing the Quality of Health Mobile Apps

              Background The use of mobile apps for health and well being promotion has grown exponentially in recent years. Yet, there is currently no app-quality assessment tool beyond “star”-ratings. Objective The objective of this study was to develop a reliable, multidimensional measure for trialling, classifying, and rating the quality of mobile health apps. Methods A literature search was conducted to identify articles containing explicit Web or app quality rating criteria published between January 2000 and January 2013. Existing criteria for the assessment of app quality were categorized by an expert panel to develop the new Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) subscales, items, descriptors, and anchors. There were sixty well being apps that were randomly selected using an iTunes search for MARS rating. There were ten that were used to pilot the rating procedure, and the remaining 50 provided data on interrater reliability. Results There were 372 explicit criteria for assessing Web or app quality that were extracted from 25 published papers, conference proceedings, and Internet resources. There were five broad categories of criteria that were identified including four objective quality scales: engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality; and one subjective quality scale; which were refined into the 23-item MARS. The MARS demonstrated excellent internal consistency (alpha = .90) and interrater reliability intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = .79). Conclusions The MARS is a simple, objective, and reliable tool for classifying and assessing the quality of mobile health apps. It can also be used to provide a checklist for the design and development of new high quality health apps.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Digit Health
                Digit Health
                DHJ
                spdhj
                Digital Health
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                2055-2076
                15 May 2024
                Jan-Dec 2024
                : 10
                : 20552076241253539
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Students Research Committee, Department of Health Information Sciences, Faculty of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Ringgold 48463, universityKerman University of Medical Sciences; , Kerman, Iran
                [2 ]Department of Health Information Sciences, Faculty of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
                Author notes
                [*]Reza Khajouei, Department of Health Information Sciences, Faculty of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Haft-bagh Highway, Kerman 4991778141, Iran. Email: r.khajouei@ 123456kmu.ac.ir
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1179-0055
                Article
                10.1177_20552076241253539
                10.1177/20552076241253539
                11100408
                38766365
                ae3cf761-ce40-410f-ae02-54255d36df1e
                © The Author(s) 2024

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 10 March 2023
                : 18 April 2024
                Categories
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                ts19
                January-December 2024

                heuristic evaluation,mobile application,mhealth,usability,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article