ArticleDigital health
Development and optimisation of a mobile app (iMPAKT) for improving person-centred practice in healthcare settings: A multi-methods evaluation study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patients' experiences of mobile health tools for chronic heart failure self-management: a qualitative meta-synthesis.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Adapting a medication adherence app for adolescents and young adults in Makurdi, Benue State: The Lu Dedoo Project.PloS one · 2026Article
- Systematic Evaluation of Utility and Usability of Publicly Available Mobile Apps for the Early Detection and Monitoring of Infectious Diseases.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- A Mobile App to Enhance Awareness of Vaccination in Adults With Psoriasis and Atopic Dermatitis: Development and Preliminary Evaluation Study.JMIR formative 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and optimise an app (iMPAKT) for improving implementation and measurement of person-centred practice in healthcare settings. Methods: Two iterative rounds of testing were carried out based on cognitive task analysis and qualitative interview methods. The System Usability Scale (SUS) was also used to evaluate the app. Quantitative data on task completion and SUS scores were evaluated descriptively, with thematic analysis performed on qualitative data. The MoSCoW prioritisation system was used to identify key modifications to improve the app. Results: Twelve participants took part (eight health professionals and four patient and public involvement representatives). Views on design and structure of the app were positive. The majority of the 16 tasks undertaken during the cognitive task analysis were easy to complete. Mean SUS scores were 73.5/100 (SD: 7.9; range = 60-92.5), suggesting good overall usability. For one section of the app that transcribes patients speaking about their experience of care, a non-intuitive user interface and lack of transcription accuracy were identified as key issues influencing usability and acceptability. Conclusions: Findings from the evaluation were used to inform iterative modifications to further develop and optimise the iMPAKT App. These included improved navigational flow, and implementation of an updated artificial intelligence (AI) based Speech-To-Text software; allowing for more accurate, real-time transcription. Use of such AI-based software represents an interesting area that requires further evaluation. This is particularly apparent in relation to potential for large-scale collection of data on person-centred measures using the iMPAKT App, and for assessing initiatives designed to improve patient experience.
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.