ArticlemHealth2021
Usability testing of an electronic health application for patient activation on weight management.
Article in mHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing oral surgery residents' competencies and training needs in tomography interfaces through a usability framework.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- GamePlan4Care, a Web-Based Adaptation of the Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer's Caregiver Health II Intervention for Family Caregivers of Persons Living With Dementia: Formative, Qualitative Usability Testing Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Human factors and systems simulation methods to optimize peri-operative EHR design and implementation.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2025Article
- The acceptability of combined management of comorbid obesity and back pain in a rural population: a mediation analysis.Pain management · 2025Article
- User-Centered Design and Usability of Voxe as a Pediatric Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Platform: Mixed Methods Evaluation Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Patient Perception When Transitioning from Classic to Remote Assisted Cardiac Rehabilitation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObesity is a leading public health concern in the United States. One promising method for enhancing patient activation to engage in health promoting behaviors is with technology in the primary care setting. The primary purpose of this study was to test the usability of a patient activation tool, called mWRAPPED, for weight management during primary care wait times.
methodsA two-cycle approach to usability testing was followed by a pragmatic usability study in the primary care setting. The application was subsequently revised based on patient feedback. A convenience sample of patients completed usability testing in the clinical setting. Patients completed the System Usability Scale throughout all testing phases.
resultsFirst cycle patients provided an average score of 76.5 on the System Usability Scale. After revising mWRAPPED, the average patient System Usability Scale score increased to 80.5. mWRAPPED received an average System Usability Scale score of 77.9 when tested in the clinical setting. mWRAPPED demonstrated initial usability for primary care patients in an academic outpatient family medicine clinical setting.
conclusionsResults of the current study will help to support the use of this application in future studies as a novel approach to delivering guideline-based weight management information to patients.
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.