| Title |
Usability of Commercially Available Mobile Applications for Diverse Patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-016-3771-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Urmimala Sarkar, Gato I. Gourley, Courtney R. Lyles, Lina Tieu, Cassidy Clarity, Lisa Newmark, Karandeep Singh, David W. Bates |
| Abstract |
Mobile applications or 'apps' intended to help people manage their health and chronic conditions are widespread and gaining in popularity. However, little is known about their acceptability and usability for low-income, racially/ethnically diverse populations who experience a disproportionate burden of chronic disease and its complications. The objective of this study was to investigate the usability of existing mobile health applications ("apps") for diabetes, depression, and caregiving, in order to facilitate development and tailoring of patient-facing apps for diverse populations. Usability testing, a mixed-methods approach that includes interviewing and direct observation of participant technology use, was conducted with participants (n = 9 caregivers; n = 10 patients with depression; and n = 10 patients with diabetes) on a total of 11 of the most popular health apps (four diabetes apps, four depression apps, and three caregiver apps) on both iPad and Android tablets. The participants were diverse: 15 (58 %) African Americans, seven (27 %) Whites, two (8 %) Asians, two (8 %) Latinos with either diabetes, depression, or who were caregivers. Participants were given condition-specific tasks, such as entering a blood glucose value into a diabetes app. Participant interviews were video recorded and were coded using standard methods to evaluate attempts and completions of tasks. We performed inductive coding of participant comments to identify emergent themes. Participants completed 79 of 185 (43 %) tasks across 11 apps without assistance. Three themes emerged from participant comments: lack of confidence with technology, frustration with design features and navigation, and interest in having technology to support their self-management. App developers should employ participatory design strategies in order to have an impact on chronic conditions such as diabetes and depression that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. While patients express interest in using technologies for self-management, current tools are not consistently usable for diverse patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 84 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 48 | 57% |
| Canada | 4 | 5% |
| Kenya | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 26 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 48 | 57% |
| Scientists | 19 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 456 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 452 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 75 | 16% |
| Researcher | 61 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 57 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 45 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 22 | 5% |
| Other | 82 | 18% |
| Unknown | 114 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 57 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 56 | 12% |
| Psychology | 41 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 29 | 6% |
| Other | 64 | 14% |
| Unknown | 142 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 148. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 January 2024.
All research outputs
#276,416
of 25,301,208 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#230
of 8,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,551
of 364,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#5
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,301,208 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.