ArticleJournal of medical systems2018
Reusable Software Usability Specifications for mHealth Applications.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Automated Workflow for Usability Audits in the PHR Realm.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Investigating usability of mobile health applications in Bangladesh.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Mobile health applications for postnatal care: Review and analysis of functionalities and technical features.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2020Review
- Sustainable Accessibility: A Mobile App for Helping People with Disabilities to Search Accessible Shops.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Evaluating the Privacy Policies of Mobile Personal Health Records for Pregnancy Monitoring.Journal of medical systems · 2018Article
- Root Exploit Detection and Features Optimization: Mobile Device and Blockchain Based Medical Data Management.Journal of medical systems · 2018Article
- Heuristics used for evaluating the usability of mobile health applications: A systematic literature review.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the key factors for the adoption of mobile technologies, and in particular of mobile health applications, is usability. A usable application will be easier to use and understand by users, and will improve user's interaction with it. This paper proposes a software requirements catalog for usable mobile health applications, which can be used for the development of new applications, or the evaluation of existing ones. The catalog is based on the main identified sources in literature on usability and mobile health applications. Our catalog was organized according to the ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011 standard and follows the SIREN methodology to create reusable catalogs. The applicability of the catalog was verified by the creation of an audit method, which was used to perform the evaluation of a real app, S Health, application created by Samsung Electronics Co. The usability requirements catalog, along with the audit method, identified several usability flaws on the evaluated app, which scored 83%. Some flaws were detected in the app related to the navigation pattern. Some more issues related to the startup experience, empty screens or writing style were also found. The way a user navigates through an application improves or deteriorates user's experience with the application. We proposed a reusable usability catalog and an audit method. This proposal was used to evaluate a mobile health application. An audit report was created with the usability issues identified on the evaluated application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29372420What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.