Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31904579›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

Usability Evaluations of Mobile Mental Health Technologies: Systematic Review.

Yavuz Inal, Jo Dugstad Wake, Frode Guribye, Tine Nordgreen

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. BMJ open · 2021
    Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

4 authors.

Yavuz Inal *Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-9919-6637
Jo Dugstad Wake *NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-2515-7720
Frode Guribye *Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-3055-6515
Tine NordgreenPsychiatric Division, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-1282-6902

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany mobile health (mHealth) apps for mental health have been made available in recent years. Although there is reason to be optimistic about their effect on improving health and increasing access to care, there is a call for more knowledge concerning how mHealth apps are used in practice.

objectiveThis study aimed to review the literature on how usability is being addressed and measured in mHealth interventions for mental health problems.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review through a search for peer-reviewed studies published between 2001 and 2018 in the following electronic databases: EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently assessed all abstracts against the inclusion and exclusion criteria, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines.

resultsA total of 299 studies were initially identified based on the inclusion keywords. Following a review of the title, abstract, and full text, 42 studies were found that fulfilled the criteria, most of which evaluated usability with patients (n=29) and health care providers (n=11) as opposed to healthy users (n=8) and were directed at a wide variety of mental health problems (n=24). Half of the studies set out to evaluate usability (n=21), and the remainder focused on feasibility (n=10) or acceptability (n=10). Regarding the maturity of the evaluated systems, most were either prototypes or previously tested versions of the technology, and the studies included few accounts of sketching and participatory design processes. The most common reason referred to for developing mobile mental health apps was the availability of mobile devices to users, their popularity, and how people in general became accustomed to using them for various purposes.

conclusionsThis study provides a detailed account of how evidence of usability of mHealth apps is gathered in the form of usability evaluations from the perspective of computer science and human-computer interaction, including how users feature in the evaluation, how the study objectives and outcomes are stated, which research methods and techniques are used, and what the notion of mobility features is for mHealth apps. Most studies described their methods as trials, gathered data from a small sample size, and carried out a summative evaluation using a single questionnaire, which indicates that usability evaluation was not the main focus. As many studies described using an adapted version of a standard usability questionnaire, there may be a need for developing a standardized mHealth usability questionnaire.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsHumansMental HealthTelemedicinemental healthmHealthmobilesystematic reviewusability evaluation

Identifiers

PMID31904579
PMCPMC6971511

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.