| Title |
Empirical Studies on Usability of mHealth Apps: A Systematic Literature Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-014-0182-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Belén Cruz Zapata, José Luis Fernández-Alemán, Ali Idri, Ambrosio Toval |
| Abstract |
The release of smartphones and tablets, which offer more advanced communication and computing capabilities, has led to the strong emergence of mHealth on the market. mHealth systems are being used to improve patients' lives and their health, in addition to facilitating communication between doctors and patients. Researchers are now proposing mHealth applications for many health conditions such as dementia, autism, dysarthria, Parkinson's disease, and so on. Usability becomes a key factor in the adoption of these applications, which are often used by people who have problems when using mobile devices and who have a limited experience of technology. The aim of this paper is to investigate the empirical usability evaluation processes described in a total of 22 selected studies related to mHealth applications by means of a Systematic Literature Review. Our results show that the empirical evaluation methods employed as regards usability could be improved by the adoption of automated mechanisms. The evaluation processes should also be revised to combine more than one method. This paper will help researchers and developers to create more usable applications. Our study demonstrates the importance of adapting health applications to users' need. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 Kingdom | 3 | 25% |
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| Argentina | 1 | 8% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 58% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 921 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 904 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 186 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 140 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 100 | 11% |
| Researcher | 84 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 66 | 7% |
| Other | 153 | 17% |
| Unknown | 192 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 170 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 103 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 77 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 71 | 8% |
| Psychology | 60 | 7% |
| Other | 202 | 22% |
| Unknown | 238 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 07 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,683,093
of 25,085,910 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#33
of 1,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,327
of 364,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#2
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,085,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. 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 364,012 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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.