ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2025
Usability and quality evaluation of the World Health Organization SkinNTDs app among frontline health workers in Cameroon: A mixed methods study.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
Abstract
backgroundOriginally adapted from a paper-based guide for skin-related neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), version 3.0.0 of the World Health Organization (WHO) SkinNTDs app aims to strengthen disease surveillance and frontline health worker capacity in NTD-endemic settings. Evidence on its usability in routine care remains limited.
objectiveTo assess the usability and perceived quality of the SkinNTDs app in a real-life setting.
methodsThis mixed methods evaluation was conducted between April and September 2024 among frontline health workers in five regions of Cameroon. Data included online questionnaires, based on the user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS), completed by 180 participants, and focus group discussions with 214 participants. Analyses were performed using jamovi 2.6.13 for quantitative analyses, and NVivo 12 Plus for qualitative analyses.
resultsParticipants reported limited dermatology experience (46.1% untrained or unexperienced), and nearly half were trained to use the app (66.1%). The app received moderate overall quality (mean = 3.61/5), with functionality and information scoring highest (both 3.69) and engagement lowest (3.50). Perceived impact was strong (3.88), and users were highly willing to recommend the app (3.96) but reluctant to pay (1.82). Prior app training to use the app was identified as the strongest predictor of higher quality ratings. Qualitative feedback highlighted critical needs: offline functionality (essential in low-connectivity areas), multilingual support, inclusion of darker skin tone images, and data-saving features. Digital barriers (e.g., data storage) and contextual adaptation were emphasized for effective implementation, alongside formal training integration.
conclusionThe app is a promising diagnostic support and educational tool, particularly when user training is provided. However, enhancements in engagement, cultural relevance (e.g., diverse imagery and local languages), offline utility, and reduced technical demands are critical for wider adoption. Scaling up adoption may be enhanced by integrating training modules into health system programs government endorsement, and addressing digital access barriers.
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.