Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34709186›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

Use of a Mobile App for the Process Evaluation of an Intervention in Health Care: Development and Usability Study.

Winnie Szu Yun Chin, Alicia Kurowski, Rebecca Gore, Guanling Chen, Laura Punnett, SHIFT Research Team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Winnie Szu Yun ChinCenter for the Promotion of Health in the New England Workplace (CPH-NEW), Lowell, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8220-3052
Alicia KurowskiCenter for the Promotion of Health in the New England Workplace (CPH-NEW), Lowell, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7288-9940
Rebecca GoreCenter for the Promotion of Health in the New England Workplace (CPH-NEW), Lowell, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7982-8131
Guanling ChenDepartment of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4796-3931
Laura PunnettCenter for the Promotion of Health in the New England Workplace (CPH-NEW), Lowell, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9270-9946
SHIFT Research TeamCenter for the Promotion of Health in the New England Workplace (CPH-NEW), Lowell, MA, United States.

Funding

ACL HHS U19OH008857NIOSH CDC HHS T03 OH008424NIOSH CDC HHS U19 OH008857
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProcess evaluation measures the context in which an outcome was or was not achieved through the ongoing monitoring of operations. Mobile apps are a potentially less burdensome tool for collecting these metrics in real time from participants. Research-driven apps are not always developed while paying attention to their usability for target users. Usability testing uncovers gaps in researchers', developers', and users' mental models of what an efficient, effective, and satisfying product looks like and facilitates design improvement. Models may vary by user demographics.

objectiveThis study describes the development of a mobile app for collecting process evaluation metrics in an intervention study with health care workers that uses feedback at multiple stages to refine the app design, quantify usage based on workers' overall adoption of the app and the app's specific function, and compare the demographic and job characteristics of end users.

methodsAn app was developed to evaluate the Center for Promotion of Health in the New England Workplace Healthy Workplace Participatory Program, which trains teams to develop solutions for workforce health obstacles. Labor-management health and safety committee members, program champions, and managers were invited to use the app. An accompanying website was available for team facilitators. The app's 4 functions were meeting creation, postmeeting surveys, project time logs, and chat messages. Google Analytics recorded screen time. Two stages of pilot tests assessed functionality and usability across different device software, hardware, and platforms. In stage 1, student testers assessed the first functional prototype by performing task scenarios expected from end users. Feedback was used to fix issues and inform further development. In stage 2, the app was offered to all study participants; volunteers completed task scenarios and provided feedback at deployment. End user data for 18 months after deployment were summarized and compared by user characteristics.

resultsIn stage 1, functionality problems were documented and fixed. The System Usability Scale scores from 7 student testers corresponded to good usability (mobile app=72.9; website=72.5), whereas 15 end users rated usability as ok (mobile app=64.7; website=62.5). Predominant usability themes from student testers were flexibility and efficiency and visibility of system status; end users prioritized flexibility andefficiency and recognition rather than recall. Both student testers and end users suggested useful features that would have resulted in the large-scale restructuring of the back end; these were considered for their benefits versus cost. In stage 2, the median total use time over 18 months was 10.9 minutes (IQR 23.8) and 14.5 visits (IQR 12.5). There were no observable patterns in use by demographic characteristics.

conclusionsOccupational health researchers developing a mobile app should budget for early and iterative testing to find and fix problems or usability issues, which can increase eventual product use and prevent potential gaps in data.

Indexed as

iterative testingmhealthmobile appsmobile phoneparticipatory researchusability testinguser demographicsuser experience designworker participation

Identifiers

PMID34709186
PMCPMC8587183

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.