ArticleComputers, informatics, nursing : CIN2020
Usability Evaluation of Four Top-Rated Commercially Available Diabetes Apps for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes.
Article in Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers to and Facilitators of Using eHealth to Support Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Self-management: Systematic Literature Review of Perceptions of Health Care Professionals and Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Content Analysis: First-Time Patient User Challenges with Top-Rated Commercial Diabetes Apps.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2021Trial
- Calorie-Counting Apps for Monitoring and Managing Calorie Intake in Adults Living With Weight-Related Chronic Diseases: Decade-Long Scoping Review (2013-2024).JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Digital Health Interventions in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and Their Impact on Clinical and Behavioral Outcomes: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Technology and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Access, Literacy, and Use Among Patients at the Diabetes Center of an Inner-City Safety-Net Hospital: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR diabetes · 2024Article
- Scientific Production Dynamics in mHealth for Diabetes: Scientometric Analysis.JMIR diabetes · 2024Article
- A Series of Personalized Virtual Light Therapy Interventions for Fatigue: Feasibility Randomized Crossover Trial for N-of-1 Treatment.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Methodologies for Evaluating the Usability of Rehabilitation Technologies Aimed at Supporting Shared Decision-Making: Scoping Review.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2023Article
- Experiences and Perceptions of Telehealth Visits in Diabetes Care During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes and Their Providers: Qualitative Study.JMIR diabetes · 2023Article
- The Usability of Homelab, a Digital Self-service at a Dutch General Practice, for Diagnostic Tests: Pilot Study With a Questionnaire.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Standardized evaluation of the quality and persuasiveness of mobile health applications for diabetes management.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- User-Centered Design of A Novel Risk Prediction Behavior Change Tool Augmented With an Artificial Intelligence Engine (MyDiabetesIQ): A Sociotechnical Systems Approach.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- A Series of Virtual Interventions for Chronic Lower Back Pain: A Feasibility Pilot Study for a Series of Personalized (N-of-1) Trials.Harvard data science review · 2022Article
- Heuristic Evaluation of a Top-Rated Diabetes Self-Management App.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
- Comparing Two Commercially Available Diabetes Apps to Explore Challenges in User Engagement: Randomized Controlled Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- The My Diabetes Care Patient Portal Intervention: Usability and Pre-Post Assessment.Applied clinical informatics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the many diabetes applications available, the rate of use is low, which may be associated with design issues. This study examined app usability compliance with heuristic design principles, guided by the Self-determination Theory on motivation. Four top-rated commercially available apps (Glucose Buddy, MyNetDiary, mySugr, and OnTrack) were tested for data recording, blood glucose analysis, and data sharing important for diabetes competence, autonomy, and connection with a healthcare provider. Four clinicians rated each app's compliance with Nielsen's 10 principles and its usability using the System Usability Scale. All four apps lacked one task function related to diabetes care competence or autonomy. Experts ranked app usability rated with the System Usability Scale: OnTrack (61) and Glucose Buddy (60) as a "D" and MyNetDairy (41) and mySugr (15) as an "F." A total of 314 heuristic violations were identified. The heuristic principle violated most frequently was "Help and Documentation" (n = 50), followed by "Error Prevention" (n = 45) and "Aesthetic and Minimalist Design" (n = 43). Four top-rated diabetes apps have "marginally acceptable" to "completely unacceptable." Future diabetes app design should target patient motivation and incorporate key heuristic design principles by providing tutorials with a help function, eliminating error-prone operations, and providing enhanced graphical or screen views.
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.