Observational studyJMIR human factors2026
Technology Acceptance of 2 mHealth Apps During an Observational Technology Evaluation Study: Qualitative Results of a Mixed Methods Study.
Observational study in JMIR human factors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Facilitators and Barriers to Digital Health Technologies for Self-Management in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: Systematic Review Based on the Updated CFIR 2.0 Framework.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMobile health (mHealth) apps are useful tools for research and disease management. However, implementation of mHealth apps is lacking in many areas. While mHealth apps offer various advantages to researchers and patients, their effectiveness depends on their actual use. Barriers to using mHealth apps are often due to human factors such as usability or technology acceptance. Although prior studies have examined the acceptance of mHealth apps in patient treatment, the key factors driving or hindering the use of mHealth apps in research remain unclear.
objectiveThis study explores user perceptions of 2 mHealth apps in the setting of an observational technology evaluation study using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. We aim to evaluate the technology acceptance of these specific apps and to investigate challenges in choosing suitable mHealth apps in research. The apps were intended for data collection; no effect on health was expected.
methodsPatients with chronic diseases as well as healthy participants used a symptom tracking app and a cognitive test app over the course of 4 weeks within the feasibility study of the project "Identifying Digital Endpoints to Assess Fatigue, Sleep and Activities of Daily Living in Neurodegenerative Disorders and Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases." Thereafter, 61 qualitative interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed. A qualitative content analysis using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology was performed.
resultsAn important aspect of motivation for participants was feedback on their health data and performance in the cognitive tests. Effort played a significant role in app use. Patients rated the apps as easy to use and quick. Using the app multiple times per day at fixed times was perceived as disruptive. Participants preferred using their own phone. Social influence as well as facilitating conditions played a lesser role in intention to use the apps. Data security was no concern for most participants. They stressed the importance of good relations with the study team.
conclusionsIn choosing suitable apps, one size will certainly not fit all. For medical research, pretesting of all materials with the potential users is of utmost importance. If the positive effects of the app on users' health are not immediately apparent, other factors may motivate use, for example, feedback, gamification, adjustable functions, applicability on all smartphone operating systems, and good relations to the study team.
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.