Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33393925›Full record

ReviewJMIR perioperative medicine2020

Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review.

Ben Patel, Arron Thind

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT04968145 nacompletednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorDivision of General Surgery , Mt. Sinai HospitalRan2017 to 2020Enrolled282ConditionsColorectal Cancer, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Utilization, Health Care, SurgeryArmsHome To Stay Mobile Health Application
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  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

2 authors.

Ben PatelGuy's and St Thomas' Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6134-5112
Arron ThindEast Surrey Hospital, Redhill, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6629-5663

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

mobile health appmobile phonepostoperative carepostoperative monitoringsmartphonetelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33393925
PMCPMC7709840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.