ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess the Usability of and User Experience with Mobile Health Applications.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- "As soon as it's trying to be persuasive, my skepticism kicks in": A qualitative study to co-design vaccine communication strategies with vaccine hesitant adults in Canada.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- A territorially coordinated, eHealth-supported fracture liaison service following femur fragility fracture: a pilot randomised controlled trial.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Japanese Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale for Sexually Transmitted Infection-Related Chatbots: Development and Psychometric Validation Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Digital Transformation of Medical Services in Romania: Does the Healthcare System Meet the Current Needs of Patients?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe growing use of mobile health (mHealth) applications needs reliable tools to assess their usability and user experience in clinical practice to improve the digital health (eHealth) interventions and ensure engagement, as higher engagement is often linked to increased efficacy of healthcare interventions. This study aimed to validate the patient Satisfaction and Usability with APPs questionnaire (pSUAPP), a multidimensional tool designed for the comprehensive assessment of mHealth applications, particularly for the integrated follow-up of patients with chronic diseases.
methodsA validation study was conducted between August and December 2022 with 85 participants from two hospitals in Spain, who completed the pSUAPP questionnaire, comprising 27 Likert-like items across four dimensions: first contact, registration, features and overall experience, and 1 open question. The questionnaire was validated by a panel of 11 experts and further assessed for psychometric properties.
resultsThe mean pSUAPP score was 79.0 (SD = 12.0), indicating high usability and positive user experience, with the highest scores in the 'features' dimension. The pSUAPP demonstrated moderate correlation with the System Usability Scale (SUS) and high reliability (Cronbach's alpha and omega t > 0.9). A reproducibility analysis showed negligible changes between repeated measures.
conclusionsThe pSUAPP questionnaire was found to be a robust tool for evaluating mHealth app usability and user experience, with potential application across various clinical settings.
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.