ArticleJMIR human factors2025
Usability and Quality of the JoyPop App: Prospective Evaluation Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Mental health difficulties are increasing among Canadian postsecondary students, and many face barriers to accessing mental health care. Mobile health smartphone apps for mental health reduce common barriers to care and improve student mental health outcomes. However, students' engagement and use of mental health apps is low. Evaluating the usability and quality of mental health apps is essential not only for user engagement but also for safety and overall utility. Few mental health apps have undergone usability and quality evaluations, especially with measures explicitly designed for these apps. The JoyPop app is a resilience-building mental health app with evidence supporting its effectiveness for student mental health. It has yet to be evaluated using standardized measures of mental health app usability and quality, and the influence of usability and quality on use is unknown. Objective: We evaluated the usability and quality of the JoyPop app and the predictive importance of usability and quality, compared to other relevant user characteristics, in predicting intentions to use the app in the future (usage intentions). Methods: Participants (N=183) completed preapp measures assessing demographics and personality traits, then used the app for 1 week, and then completed postapp measures assessing the usability, quality, and use of the JoyPop app. Usability (overall; and subscales: ease of use, interface and satisfaction, and usefulness) and quality (objective, subjective, and perceived impact) were assessed with descriptive statistics. Multiple regression analyses tested the predictive importance of usability and quality on usage intentions after controlling for other user characteristics. Results: Participants rated the JoyPop app's overall usability as "very good" (mean 5.63, SD 0.85). Participants rated the JoyPop app's overall objective quality as "excellent" (mean 4.06, SD 0.54). Subjective quality ratings were good, with many participants (135/183, 73.8%) indicating they would recommend the app to others. Participants rated the app as having a moderate and helpful impact on their mental health and coping skills (mean 3.48, SD 0.88). In each regression model, usability (β=.56, P<.001) and quality (β=.52, P<.001) were the strongest predictors and predicted usage intentions over and above other user characteristics. Conclusions: Results align with prior research evaluating the JoyPop app and maintain that it is an engaging and high-quality mental health app that can support students. Findings provide important insight into the optimal design of mental health apps for students and inform adaptations to future iterations of the JoyPop app.
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.