Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31651409›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019

Usability and Feasibility of a Smartphone App to Assess Human Behavioral Factors Associated with Tick Exposure (The Tick App): Quantitative and Qualitative Study.

Maria P Fernandez, Gebbiena M Bron, Pallavi A Kache, Scott R Larson, Adam Maus, David Gustafson, Jean I Tsao, Lyric C Bartholomay, Susan M Paskewitz, Maria A Diuk-Wasser

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Maria P Fernandez *Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York City, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8645-2267
Gebbiena M Bron *Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4431-2482
Pallavi A KacheDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8104-9599
Scott R LarsonDepartment of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6757-7037
Adam MausCenter for Health Enhancement System Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5896-5230
David GustafsonCenter for Health Enhancement System Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9787-6428
Jean I TsaoDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6641-7931
Lyric C BartholomayDepartment of Pathobiological Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5149-9452
Susan M PaskewitzDepartment of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7180-7392
Maria A Diuk-WasserDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8809-3050
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USColumbia University · USEarth Island Institute · USMichigan State University · US

Funding

NCEZID CDC HHS U01 CK000505NCEZID CDC HHS U01 CK000509
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health (mHealth) technology takes advantage of smartphone features to turn them into research tools, with the potential to reach a larger section of the population in a cost-effective manner, compared with traditional epidemiological methods. Although mHealth apps have been widely implemented in chronic diseases and psychology, their potential use in the research of vector-borne diseases has not yet been fully exploited.

objectiveThis study aimed to assess the usability and feasibility of The Tick App, the first tick research-focused app in the United States.

methodsThe Tick App was designed as a survey tool to collect data on human behaviors and movements associated with tick exposure while engaging users in tick identification and reporting. It consists of an enrollment survey to identify general risk factors, daily surveys to collect data on human activities and tick encounters (Tick Diaries), a survey to enter the details of tick encounters coupled with tick identification services provided by the research team (Report a Tick), and educational material. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, we evaluated the enrollment strategy (passive vs active), the user profile, location, longitudinal use of its features, and users' feedback.

resultsBetween May and September 2018, 1468 adult users enrolled in the app. The Tick App users were equally represented across genders and evenly distributed across age groups. Most users owned a pet (65.94%, 962/1459; P<.001), did frequent outdoor activities (recreational or peridomestic; 75.24%, 1094/1454; P<.001 and 64.58%, 941/1457; P<.001, respectively), and lived in the Midwest (56.55%, 824/1457) and Northeast (33.0%, 481/1457) regions in the United States, more specifically in Wisconsin, southern New York, and New Jersey. Users lived more frequently in high-incidence counties for Lyme disease (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 3.5, 95% CI 1.8-7.2; P<.001) and in counties with cases recently increasing (IRR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.2; P=.03). Recurring users (49.25%, 723/1468) had a similar demographic profile to all users but participated in outdoor activities more frequently (80.5%, 575/714; P<.01). The number of Tick Diaries submitted per user (median 2, interquartile range [IQR] 1-11) was higher for older age groups (aged >55 years; IRR 3.4, 95% CI 1.5-7.6; P<.001) and lower in the Northeast (IRR[NE] 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.7; P<.001), whereas the number of tick reports (median 1, IQR 1-2) increased with the frequency of outdoor activities (IRR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.8; P<.001).

conclusionsThis assessment allowed us to identify what fraction of the population used The Tick App and how it was used during a pilot phase. This information will be used to improve future iterations of The Tick App and tailor potential tick prevention interventions to the users' characteristics.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAnimalsErgonomicsFeasibility StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsNew YorkQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesTick-Borne Diseasescitizen scienceecological momentary assessmentLyme diseaseticks

Identifiers

PMID31651409
PMCPMC6913724
OpenAlexW2967142604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.