ArticleJMIR human factors2022
User-Centered Design to Enhance mHealth Systems for Individuals With Dexterity Impairments: Accessibility and Usability Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards person-centered pain management in dementia: usability of a digital medical device in Portuguese residential care facilities.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Mobile Health (mHealth) for Chronic Low Back Pain Assessment: Design, Development, and Usability Evaluation.JOR spine · 2025Article
- Patients' Experiences of Telehealth-Based Nutrition Interventions for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome in China: Qualitative Descriptive Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Evaluating and improving the usability of a mHealth platform to assess postoperative dental pain.JAMIA open · 2024Article
- Development and Evaluation of eHealth Services Regarding Accessibility: Scoping Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMobile health systems have been shown to be useful in supporting self-management by promoting adherence to schedules and longitudinal health interventions, especially in people with disabilities. The Interactive Mobile Health and Rehabilitation (iMHere) system was developed to empower people with disabilities and those with chronic conditions with supports needed for self-management and independent living. Since the first iteration of the iMHere 1.0 app, several studies have evaluated the accessibility and usability of the system. Potential opportunities to improve and simplify the user interface were identified, and the iMHere modules were redesigned accordingly.
objectiveIn this study, we aim to evaluate the usability of the redesigned modules within the iMHere 1.0 app.
methodsWe evaluated the original and redesigned iMHere modules-MyMeds and SkinCare. The Purdue Pegboard Test was administered to assess the participants' dexterity levels. Participants were then asked to perform a set of tasks using both the original and redesigned MyMeds and SkinCare modules to assess their efficiency and effectiveness. Usability was measured using the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire to evaluate 10 new accessibility features that were added to the redesigned app. Participants were also asked which version they preferred.
resultsIn total, 24 participants with disabilities and varying degrees of dexterity impairments completed the entire study protocol. Participants displayed improved efficiency and effectiveness when using the redesigned modules compared with the original modules. The participants also reported improved usability and preferred the redesigned modules.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that the iMHere system became more efficient, effective, and usable for individuals with dexterity impairments after redesigning it according to user-centered principles.
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.