ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018
Evaluating an mHealth App for Health and Well-Being at Work: Mixed-Method Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Promoting Physical Activity and Weight Loss With mHealth Interventions Among Workers: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Pooled it
- Usability Evaluations of Mobile Mental Health Technologies: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Improving sleep health in paramedics through an app-based intervention: a randomised waitlist control pilot trial.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Technology Acceptance of 2 mHealth Apps During an Observational Technology Evaluation Study: Qualitative Results of a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Observational
- Mental Health Apps Implemented in the Workplace: Scoping Review of Trends and Gaps in Evaluation Research.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- School eHealth Education Program Pakistan (eSHEPP) to improve NCDs awareness in adolescents from urban Pakistan: a mixed method design protocol.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Article
- Supporting Police Well-Being Through an Adaptive Shift Management System: Co-Design Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- User-Driven Development of a Digital Behavioral Intervention for Chronic Pain: Multimethod Multiphase Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Toward Tailoring Just-in-Time Adaptive Intervention Systems for Workplace Stress Reduction: Exploratory Analysis of Intervention Implementation.JMIR mental health · 2024Article
- Advantages and disadvantages of mobile applications for workplace health promotion: A scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
- Health, Stress and Technologies: Integrating Technology Acceptance and Health Belief Models for Smartphone-Based Stress Intervention.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Improving Predictability and Effectiveness in Preventive Digital Health Interventions: Scoping Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2023Article
- Introducing mobile apps to promote the well-being of German and Italian university students. A cross-national application of the Technology Acceptance Model.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Environmental conditions, mobile digital culture, mobile usability, knowledge of app in COVID-19 risk mitigation: A structural equation model analysis.Smart health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Article
- Clinical, Organizational and Regulatory, and Ethical and Social (CORES) Issues and Recommendations on Blockchain Deployment for Healthcare: Evidence from Experts.Blockchain in healthcare today · 2022Article
- Moderated digital social therapy for young people with emerging mental health problems: A user-centered mixed-method design and usability study.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- Interactive System for Similarity-Based Inspection and Assessment of the Well-Being of mHealth Users.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Development of the Shift Smartphone App to Support the Emotional Well-Being of Junior Physicians: Design of a Prototype and Results of Usability and Acceptability Testing.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- New Technologies in the Workplace: Can Personal and Organizational Variables Affect the Employees' Intention to Use a Work-Stress Management App?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Scoping review: Development and assessment of evaluation frameworks of mobile health apps for recommendations to consumers.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo improve workers' health and well-being, workplace interventions have been developed, but utilization and reach are unsatisfactory, and effects are small. In recent years, new approaches such as mobile health (mHealth) apps are being developed, but the evidence base is poor. Research is needed to examine its potential and to assess when, where, and for whom mHealth is efficacious in the occupational setting. To develop interventions for workers that actually will be adopted, insight into user satisfaction and technology acceptance is necessary. For this purpose, various qualitative evaluation methods are available.
objectiveThe objectives of this study were to gain insight into (1) the opinions and experiences of employees and experts on drivers and barriers using an mHealth app in the working context and (2) the added value of three different qualitative methods that are available to evaluate mHealth apps in a working context: interviews with employees, focus groups with employees, and a focus group with experts.
methodsEmployees of a high-tech company and experts were asked to use an mHealth app for at least 3 weeks before participating in a qualitative evaluation. Twenty-two employees participated in interviews, 15 employees participated in three focus groups, and 6 experts participated in one focus group. Two researchers independently coded, categorized, and analyzed all quotes yielded from these evaluation methods with a codebook using constructs from user satisfaction and technology acceptance theories.
resultsInterviewing employees yielded 785 quotes, focus groups with employees yielded 266 quotes, and the focus group with experts yielded 132 quotes. Overall, participants muted enthusiasm about the app. Combined results from the three evaluation methods showed drivers and barriers for technology, user characteristics, context, privacy, and autonomy. A comparison between the three qualitative methods showed that issues revealed by experts only slightly overlapped with those expressed by employees. In addition, it was seen that the type of evaluation yielded different results.
conclusionsFindings from this study provide the following recommendations for organizations that are planning to provide mHealth apps to their workers and for developers of mHealth apps: (1) system performance influences adoption and adherence, (2) relevancy and benefits of the mHealth app should be clear to the user and should address users' characteristics, (3) app should take into account the work context, and (4) employees should be alerted to their right to privacy and use of personal data. Furthermore, a qualitative evaluation of mHealth apps in a work setting might benefit from combining more than one method. Factors to consider when selecting a qualitative research method are the design, development stage, and implementation of the app; the working context in which it is being used; employees' mental models; practicability; resources; and skills required of experts and users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.