ArticlePloS one2022
Promoting the health and wellbeing of children: A feasibility study of a digital tool among professionals.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Digital Health Education for Chronic Lung Disease: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
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
The foundations of children's health and wellbeing are laid in early childhood. A gamified app (EmpowerKids tool) was designed to support professionals to have discussions with 6- to 12-year-olds from low-income families about their health and wellbeing. The aim of this feasibility study was to evaluate the usability and acceptability of the tool from the perspective of professionals in social, health and education settings. The study was conducted using a one-group post-test-only design. The usability data were collected using System Usability Scale and the acceptability data were collected using an open-ended questionnaire distributed to professionals (n = 24) in Estonia, Finland and Latvia. The data were collected during two phases. The tool was modified further on the basis of the results. The total usability scores were 82/100 (first testing) and 84/100 (second testing), indicating excellent usability. The answers related to acceptability were divided into four categories: suitability for the context; satisfaction and quality; attractiveness; modification needs. The professionals perceived that the tool helped them to build an overall picture of a child's health and wellbeing, and to gain information about the child's individual needs. The requirements for modification detected during the first testing were mostly related to difficulties with textual expressions and graphics. No major modification requirements were expressed during the second testing. The tool is considered feasible and may be used by professionals from different settings to support children's health and wellbeing. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool from the perspective of child outcomes.
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.