ArticleJMIR formative research2021
Conceptualizing Usability for the eHealth Context: Content Analysis of Usability Problems of eHealth Applications.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Usability evaluation of Alerta Alcohol 2.0: an eHealth game to prevent adolescent alcohol consumption.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Coproducing an Online Platform for People With Long-Term Physical Health Conditions: Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Advancing digital health literacy in cancer care: Recommendations from two nominal group technique workshops in the TRANSiTION project.Open research Europe · 2026Article
- "I don't see anything specifically about Black/African Americans." Testing an Alzheimer-specific generative AI tool tailored for African American/Black communities.ACM transactions on computing for healthcare · 2026Article
- Governance and implementation of solar-powered digital health systems in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed-methods study from Kenya and Ethiopia.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Usability and User Experience of a Digital Platform Prototype (Healthy Bone) to Promote Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Treatment in Patients With Osteoporosis: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Optimizing Participant Engagement in Cyberhealth Co-Design: Course-of-Action Framework Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Pharmaceutical Analysis of Inpatient Prescriptions: Systematic Observation of Hospital Pharmacists' Practices in the Early User-Centered Design Phase.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Evaluating Perceptions of the CANreduce 2.0 eHealth Intervention for Cannabis Use: Focus Group Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Understanding Appropriation of Digital Self-Monitoring Tools in Mental Health Care: Qualitative Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Usability and Usefulness of a Symptom Management Coaching System for Patients With Cancer Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Comparative Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- What are the virtual reality solutions for dual-task intervention to promote health in aging? A scoping review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
- Afraid of the dentist? There's an app for that: Development and usability testing of a cognitive behavior therapy-based mobile app.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Testing Two Online Symptom Checkers With Vulnerable Groups: Usability Study to Improve Cognitive Accessibility of eHealth Services.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Patient Portals as Facilitators of Engagement in Patients With Diabetes and Chronic Heart Disease: Scoping Review of Usage and Usability.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Improving usability benchmarking for the eHealth domain: The development of the eHealth UsaBility Benchmarking instrument (HUBBI).PloS one · 2022Article
- Chinese Version of the mHealth App Usability Questionnaire: Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUsability tests can be either formative (where the aim is to detect usability problems) or summative (where the aim is to benchmark usability). There are ample formative methods that consider user characteristics and contexts (ie, cognitive walkthroughs, interviews, and verbal protocols). This is especially valuable for eHealth applications, as health conditions can influence user-system interactions. However, most summative usability tests do not consider eHealth-specific factors that could potentially affect the usability of a system. One of the reasons for this is the lack of fine-grained frameworks or models of usability factors that are unique to the eHealth domain.
objectiveIn this study, we aim to develop an ontology of usability problems, specifically for eHealth applications, with patients as primary end users.
methodsWe analyzed 8 data sets containing the results of 8 formative usability tests for eHealth applications. These data sets contained 400 usability problems that could be used for analysis. Both inductive and deductive coding were used to create an ontology from 6 data sets, and 2 data sets were used to validate the framework by assessing the intercoder agreement.
resultsWe identified 8 main categories of usability factors, including basic system performance, task-technology fit, accessibility, interface design, navigation and structure, information and terminology, guidance and support, and satisfaction. These 8 categories contained a total of 21 factors: 14 general usability factors and 7 eHealth-specific factors. Cohen κ was calculated for 2 data sets on both the category and factor levels, and all Cohen κ values were between 0.62 and 0.67, which is acceptable. Descriptive analysis revealed that approximately 69.5% (278/400) of the usability problems can be considered as general usability factors and 30.5% (122/400) as eHealth-specific usability factors.
conclusionsOur ontology provides a detailed overview of the usability factors for eHealth applications. Current usability benchmarking instruments include only a subset of the factors that emerged from our study and are therefore not fully suited for summative evaluations of eHealth applications. Our findings support the development of new usability benchmarking tools for the eHealth domain.
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.