ArticlePloS one2025
Psychological consultation apps in Saudi Arabia: A study for experts' evaluation and users' points of view.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advancing foundational models in digital health technology adoption: A systematic literature review of multidisciplinary factors.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical consultation applications (apps) have rapidly proliferated globally. One type of app is the psychological consultation app, which has made visiting doctors more convenient, particularly for individuals who feel embarrassed about consulting a psychiatrist. However, only a few researchers have examined the usability or user experience of such apps. This study aims to evaluate the user experience of psychological consultation apps in Saudi Arabia, specifically focusing on the usability aspects and user satisfaction of the apps "Labayh," "Estenarah," and "Mind." The research employs two methodologies: First, an expert evaluation using the SMART heuristic framework, developed to assess the usability of mobile apps by identifying usability issues based on established principles. Results from this method revealed that all three apps faced challenges, particularly in SMART 5 (Each interface should focus on one task) and SMART 10 (Cater for diverse mobile environments). Second, a sentiment analysis of user reviews from app stores was conducted, categorizing feedback into positive and negative reviews. User reviews were collected using Heedzy, an online tool designed for extracting reviews from mobile apps. Data cleaning was performed using Python libraries, which handled missing data and removed duplicate entries. Out of 459 reviews analyzed, 51% were negative, focusing primarily on general dissatisfaction and functionality issues, while 49% were positive, highlighting user appreciation and the innovative concept of online consultations. Specific findings indicated that the "Mind" app had significant usability concerns, receiving a severity rating of 70, with notable issues in error prevention and interface clarity. Recommendations for improvement include enhancing task-focused design, increasing adaptability for diverse mobile environments, and addressing user feedback to refine app functionalities. This research contributes valuable insights for designers aiming to improve the usability of psychological consultation apps in the region.
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.