Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32003748›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Usability and Utility of a Mobile App to Improve Medication Adherence Among Ambulatory Care Patients in Malaysia: Qualitative Study.

Sara Chew, Pauline Siew Mei Lai, Chirk Jenn Ng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Users' perceptions of the "My Medicine" mobile app usability.Journal of public health research · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sara Chew *Department of Primary Care Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0001-5423-8346
Pauline Siew Mei Lai *Department of Primary Care Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-9940-9644
Chirk Jenn Ng *Department of Primary Care Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-8320-1603
University of Malaya · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo date, several medication adherence apps have been developed. However, the existing apps have been developed without involving relevant stakeholders and were not subjected to mobile health app guidelines. In addition, the usability and utility of these apps have not been tested with end users.

objectiveThis study aimed to describe the usability and utility testing of a newly developed medication adherence app-Med Assist-among ambulatory care patients in Malaysia.

methodsThe Med Assist app was developed based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Nielson usability model. Beta testing was conducted from March to May 2016 at a primary care clinic in Kuala Lumpur. Ambulatory care patients who scored ≥40% on the electronic health literacy scale, were aged ≥21 years, and were taking two or more long-term medications were recruited. Two rounds of in-depth interviews were conducted with each participant. The first interview, which was conducted upon participant recruitment, was to assess the usability of Med Assist. Participants were asked to download Med Assist on their phone and perform two tasks (register themselves on Med Assist and enter at least one medication). Participants were encouraged to "concurrently think aloud" when using Med Assist, while nonverbal cues were observed and recorded. The participants were then invited for a second interview (conducted ≥7 days after the first interview) to assess the utility of Med Assist after using the app for 1 week. This was done using "retrospective probing" based on a topic guide developed for utilities that could improve medication adherence.

resultsUsability and utility testing was performed for the Med Assist app (version P4). A total of 13 participants were recruited (6 men, 7 women) for beta testing. Three themes emerged from the usability testing, while three themes emerged from the utility testing. From the usability testing, participants found Med Assist easy to use and user friendly, as they were able to complete the tasks given to them. However, the details required when adding a new medication were found to be confusing despite displaying information in a hierarchical order. Participants who were caregivers as well as patients found the multiple-user support and pill buddy utility useful. This suggests that Med Assist may improve the medication adherence of patients on multiple long-term medications.

conclusionsThe usability and utility testing of Med Assist with end users made the app more patient centered in ambulatory care. From the usability testing, the overall design and layout of Med Assist were simple and user friendly enough for participants to navigate through the app and add a new medication. From the participants' perspectives, Med Assist was a useful and reliable tool with the potential to improve medication adherence. In addition, utilities such as multiple user support and a medication refill reminder encouraged improved medication management.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareMedication AdherenceMobile ApplicationsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMalaysiaMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studiesmedication adherence appusability testingutility testing

Identifiers

PMID32003748
PMCPMC7055750
OpenAlexW2981337582

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.