Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35425641›Full record

ArticleDigital health

User experience and acceptance of patients and healthy adults testing a personalized self-management app for depression: A non-randomized mixed-methods feasibility study.

Gwendolyn Mayer, Svenja Hummel, Neele Oetjen, Nadine Gronewold, Stefan Bubolz, Kim Blankenhagel, Mathias Slawik, Rüdiger Zarnekow, Thomas Hilbel, Jobst-Hendrik Schultz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors.

Gwendolyn MayerDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5886-3226
Svenja HummelDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Neele OetjenDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nadine GronewoldDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan BubolzDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Kim BlankenhagelInformation and Communication Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Mathias Slawikmedisite GmbH, Hanover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5717-5835
Rüdiger ZarnekowInformation and Communication Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas HilbelWestphalian University of Applied Sciences, Gelsenkirchen, Germany.
Jobst-Hendrik SchultzDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Previous studies have shown positive treatment outcomes of e-mental health applications targeting depression. However, few applications provide personalized features. The aim of the present study is to ask for the user experience and acceptance of patients with depression and healthy adults, who tested the self-management app Self-administered Psycho Therapy SystemS over a period of 5 days. The results serve as a source for evidence-based recommendations for developers and clinicians. Methods: A total of 110 participants (41 patients and 69 healthy controls) tested the app Self-administered Psycho Therapy SystemS over a period of 5 days and completed evaluation sheets developed for the purpose of this study. Quantitative measures were asked with 5-point Likert-scaled items (range: -2 to + 2) for the perceived quality of the programme and its components, its practicality (both referred to as user experience) and its acceptance. Student's Results: The perceived quality of the total programme was rated with M = 0.96 (SD = 0.82), the practicality was M = 0.84 (SD = 0.08) and the acceptance was M = 0.25 (SD = 1.04). Patients rated perceived quality of the total programme and acceptance higher than healthy adults, while there was no difference in practicality. Acceptance was associated with increased depression scores (r = 0.33, Conclusions: Patients with depression accepted the app Self-administered Psycho Therapy SystemS more than healthy adults and gave higher ratings in quality. User experience of all users shows a need for features of guidance, choice and personalization that clinicians and developers of future apps should pay attention to.

Indexed as

anxietyappsdepressioneHealthmixed methodspersonalized medicinepsychologyself-monitoringtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID35425641
PMCPMC9003643

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.