| Title |
Mobile PHRs Compliance with Android and iOS Usability Guidelines
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-014-0081-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Belén Cruz Zapata, Antonio Hernández Niñirola, Ali Idri, José Luis Fernández-Alemán, Ambrosio Toval |
| Abstract |
Mobile Personal Health Records (PHRs) have achieved a particularly strong market share since the appearance of more powerful mobile devices and popular worldwide mobile application markets such as Apple's App Store and Android's Google Play. However, Android and Apple have a set of recommendations on design and usability targeted towards developers who wish to publish apps in their stores: Android Design Guidelines and iOS Human Interface Guidelines. This paper aims to evaluate compliance with these guidelines by assessing the usability recommendations of a set of 24 selected mobile PHR applications. An analysis process based on a well-known Systematic Literature Review (SLR) protocol was used. The results show that the 24 mobile PHR applications studied are not suitably structured. 46 % of these applications do not use any of the recommended patterns, using instead lists or springboards, which are deprecated patterns for top-level menus. 70 % of the PHRs require a registration to be able to test the application when these interactions should be delayed. Our study will help both PHR users to select user-friendly mobile PHRs and PHR providers and developers to identify the good usability practices implemented by the applications with the highest scores. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 2 | 33% |
| Bolivia, Plurinational State of | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 30% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 23% |
| Unknown | 15 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 43 | 37% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Engineering | 9 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 June 2016.
All research outputs
#6,115,047
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#210
of 1,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,026
of 228,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,143 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 228,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.