Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32319965›Full record

ReviewJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Proposal for the User-Centered Design Approach for Health Apps Based on Successful Experiences: Integrative Review.

Guillermo Molina-Recio, Rafael Molina-Luque, Ana M Jiménez-García, Pedro E Ventura-Puertos, Alberto Hernández-Reyes, Manuel Romero-Saldaña

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 46 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Digital Patient Experience: Umbrella Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Guillermo Molina-RecioDepartment of Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0005-4901
Rafael Molina-LuqueDepartment of Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5223-7400
Ana M Jiménez-GarcíaDepartment of Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4425-485X
Pedro E Ventura-PuertosDepartment of Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5129-0376
Alberto Hernández-ReyesDepartment of Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7882-792X
Manuel Romero-SaldañaDepartment of Occupational Safety and Health, Córdoba City Hall, Córdoba, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6146-4402
University of Córdoba · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferent strategies encompassed within mHealth have shown themselves to be effective for maintaining good health or controlling certain diseases. However, there is usually a very high rate of abandonment of health apps. Therefore, it would seem obvious that there is a need for involving the end users (whether they are health professionals, patients, or both) in the design process from the early stages in order to enable their needs and characteristics to be identified. In this sense, it is common knowledge that focusing on the user permits the consideration of valuable details aimed at making the correct adjustment between the patient, the technology, and the organization of attention.

objectiveThe goal of the research was to propose a methodology based on the review of previous successful user experiences in setting up health apps by using qualitative techniques (focus groups and discussion groups) that includes the participation of information technology and health professionals and the patients themselves.

methodsAn integrative review was made of studies in which a qualitative methodology was employed mainly through focus and/or discussion groups for the design and development of health apps, consulting diverse databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Proquest) with the following search strategy: "mHealth AND apps AND focus group OR discussion group." A total of 69 papers were included in the review.

resultsA proposal structured in 4 sessions of variable duration was made in which information technology and health professionals and patients take part: composing, preparing, and organizing contents (session 1); testing structure and usability (session 2); does the app fit the needs of end users? (session 3); and last testing-keep on improving (session 4). Throughout the sessions, we propose studying aspects like previous user experiences in mHealth, barriers to the adoption of mHealth, interface contents, management and browsability, usability, perceived quality, security and privacy, capacity to self-manage disease with the app, ergonomics, and glanceability, etc. Specific tools that have proved useful in previous research for measuring these aspects are presented.

conclusionsThese work sessions would be based on predominantly qualitative methodologies although, as they evolve, validated questionnaires permitting the assessment of the objectivity of certain technical aspects could be incorporated. With this proposal, a project centered on end users could be effected, responding to their needs. However, this requires validation that will be made via implementation in the development of health apps, with the subsequent measurement of results in terms of adherence and improvement in the clinical variables of the end users.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsTelemedicineUser-Centered DesignFocus GroupsHumansQualitative Researchdiscussion groupsfocus groupsinterdisciplinaritymHealthuser-centered development

Identifiers

PMID32319965
PMCPMC7203616
OpenAlexW3003302600

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.