ReviewDigital health
Heuristics used for evaluating the usability of mobile health applications: A systematic literature review.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Which criteria are important in usability evaluation of mHealth applications: an umbrella review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Pooled it
- Development and usability evaluation of a patient journey-based mHealth intervention for esophageal cancer patients: a three-phase protocol.Frontiers in public health · 2025Trial
- Evaluating a digital health ecosystem for asthma and air quality: an early feasibility study based on clinicians and patient-reported measures.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Psychological consultation apps in Saudi Arabia: A study for experts' evaluation and users' points of view.PloS one · 2025Article
- Quality Evaluating Mobile Health Apps for Oral Hygiene Management Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS): A Systematic Review of Smartphone App Markets.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Review
- How to evaluate user experience in digital health? A scoping review of questionnaires in virtual reality applications.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Obstetric Emergency Supply Chain Dynamics and Information Flow Among Obstetric Emergency Supply Chain Employees: Key Informant Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- The barriers and challenges of using health information technology in medication administration process for pediatrics and neonates: A qualitative study.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Development, content validation and quality evaluation of a mobile app for oral health surveillance: a modified Delphi approach.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
- Review
- Navigating the DiGA jungle: A taxonomy and archetypal framework of the German digital therapeutics landscape.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Mobile health applications hold immense potential for enhancing health outcomes. Usability is one of the main factors for the adoption and use of mobile health applications. However, despite the growing importance of mHealth applications, clear standards for their evaluation remain elusive. The present study aimed to determine heuristics for the usability evaluation of health-related applications. Methods: We systematically searched multiple databases for relevant papers published between January 2008 and April 2021. Articles were reviewed, and data were extracted and categorized from those meeting inclusion criteria by two authors independently. Heuristics were identified based on statements, words, and concepts expressed in the studies. These heuristics were first mapped to Nielsen's heuristics based on their differences or similarities. The remaining heuristics that were very important for mobile applications were categorized into new heuristics. Results: Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria. Seventy-nine heuristics were extracted from the papers. After combining the items with the same concepts and removing irrelevant items based on the exclusion criteria, 20 heuristics remained. Common heuristics such as "Visibility of system status" and "Flexibility and efficiency of use" were categorized into 10 previously established heuristics and new heuristics like "Navigation" and "User engagement" were recognized as new ones. Conclusions: In our study, we have meticulously identified 20 heuristics that hold promise for evaluating and designing mHealth applications. These heuristics can be used by the researchers for the development of robust tools for heuristic evaluation. These tools, when adapted or tailored for health domain applications, have the potential to significantly enhance the quality of mHealth applications. Ultimately, this improvement in quality translates to enhanced patient safety. Protocol Registration: (10.17605/OSF.IO/PZJ7H).
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.