ArticleDigital health
Documenting user-centered design in mHealth for older adults with low digital literacy: Towards an operational blueprint and reporting checklist documenting UCD in mHealth for older adults.
Article in Digital health. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transparent reporting of user-centered design (UCD) in mobile health (mHealth) interventions remains limited and poorly standardized, hindering replicability and equity. Existing frameworks, such as ISO 9241-210, FRAME, and TIDieR, provide partial guidance but do not capture completely the UCD cycle. Objective: To propose an operational blueprint and a practical checklist for reporting UCD in mHealth interventions, and to conduct a pilot content validation of the checklist with application to older adults in Brazil. Methods: Elements from ISO 9241-210, FRAME, and TIDieR were integrated into the iterative development of an mHealth app ("Viva"). Twenty older adults (mean age 65.0 (3.5) years; 70% high school, 15% elementary, 15% bachelor's degree) participated in focus groups, usability testing, and iterative prototyping. Usability was assessed with the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Adaptations were documented with FRAME. Results: After two prototyping cycles, mean SUS scores increased from 71.2 (SD 4.7) to 87.1 (SD 5.9), representing a statistically significant improvement of +15.9 points (95%CI: +12.1 to +19.6; Conclusions: The proposed blueprint and checklist address critical gaps in UCD reporting by making design processes auditable and replicable. Although further multicenter validation is required, these tools provide a preliminary step toward harmonized reporting practices, with potential to improve transparency, equity, and clinical relevance in digital health, pending broader external validation.
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.