ReviewJMIR perioperative medicine2020
Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review.
Review in JMIR perioperative medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04968145 (Home To Stay), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Home To Stay: a Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Effect of a Post-discharge Mobile App on 30-day Re-admission Following Elective Colorectal Surgery
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Which criteria are important in usability evaluation of mHealth applications: an umbrella review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Pooled it
- System Usability Scale Benchmarking for Digital Health Apps: Meta-analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Pooled it
- Patients' Viewpoints on Using the Sehhaty Mobile Health Application in the Western Region of Saudi Arabia: A Q-Methodology Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An Ecological Momentary Assessment Smartphone App for High-Risk HIV Populations: Development and Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- i-MoMCARE: AI-enabled mobile app for maternal and child health care in Cambodia - a pilot implementation and evaluation study.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- The Impact of Healthcare Professionals' Characteristics on the Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support Systems: Insights from a Cross-Country Usability and Technology Acceptance Study of the iCARE Tool.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Patients' Usability Experience With a Postoperative Follow-Up Web Application.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Digital Health and Smart Technologies in Shoulder Arthroplasty: Emerging Tools and Clinical Implications.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of digital personalized nursing pathway on postoperative rehabilitation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Mobile App-Based Interventions to Support Maternal Roles in Child Nutrition and Development: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Mobile Health (mHealth) for Chronic Low Back Pain Assessment: Design, Development, and Usability Evaluation.JOR spine · 2025Article
- Identifying and Evaluating Mobile and Web Apps for Patients to Manage Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The first AI-based Chatbot to promote HIV self-management: A mixed methods usability study.HIV medicine · 2025Article
- Augmented Reality in Enhancing Operating Room Crisis Checklist Adherence: Randomized Comparative Efficacy Study.JMIR XR and spatial computing · 2025Article
- Article
- WhatsApp Versus SMS for 2-Way, Text-Based Follow-Up After Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision in South Africa: Exploration of Messaging Platform Choice.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Co-creation and evaluation of an algorithm for the development of a mobile application for wound care among new graduate nurses: A mixed methods study.International wound journal · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation.
objectiveThis systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses.
methodsThe A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ).
resultsA total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100.
conclusionsCurrent analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.
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.