ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2024
Comparison of evaluation methods for improving the usability of a Spanish mHealth tool.
Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a patient educational brochure to increase knowledge of cervical cancer screening among women living with HIV in La Romana.BMC public health · 2026Article
- A randomized controlled trial of the dissemination of an mHealth intervention for improving health outcomes: the WiseApp for Spanish-speakers living with HIV study protocol.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMobile health (mHealth) technology is now widely used across health conditions and populations. The rigorous development of these tools has yielded improved health outcomes, yet the ideal approach for developing mHealth tools continues to evolve, indicating the need for rigorous usability evaluation methods. This study compares two usability evaluation methods - cognitive interviews and usability assessments employing a think-aloud approach - for adapting an evidence-based mHealth tool from English into Spanish.
methodsWe conducted cognitive interviews and usability assessments using a think-aloud protocol to evaluate the usability of an HIV mHealth application among 40 Spanish-speaking adults with HIV in New York City, NY, and La Romana, Dominican Republic. The Health IT Usability Evaluation Model (Health-ITUEM) was used to guide the analysis of qualitative data collected from each method.
resultsParticipants (N = 40) averaged 43 years old (SD = 12.26; range 20-79), identified primarily Hispanic/Latino (92.5 %), and resided in La Romana (50 %) or New York City (50 %). Both usability evaluation methods yielded similar findings, highlighting learnability and information needs as crucial components of participant feedback for the mHealth application. Cognitive interviews captured participants' perspectives on the app's interface and design. On the other hand, results from usability assessments offered insights into participants' competency while interacting with the mHealth tool.
conclusionFindings from this study highlight the contributions and limitations of including cognitive interviews and task-based usability assessments using a think-aloud approach in mHealth usability testing. Future research should employ a multi-method approach, incorporating complementary usability evaluation methods and engaging participants in multiple assessments. Using complementary usability evaluation methods may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the usability and participant experience aspects of a mHealth tool compared to using a single usability evaluation method.
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.