OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to comprehensively evaluate mobile apps used for medication compliance and nutrition tracking for possible use by CKD and ESRD patients.
METHODS: A systematic review framework was applied to the search, screening, and assessment of apps identified and downloaded from the iOS and Android app stores. We selected apps using 13 relevant search terms, narrowed down based on a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then used the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), a widely adopted app evaluation tool to assess the effectiveness of apps. The internal consistency and interrater reliability were tested using Cronbach alpha and interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), respectively.
RESULTS: The MARS total score had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach alpha=.90) and a moderate level of interrater reliability (2-way mixed ICC 0.65). Overall, 11 out of the 12 reviewed apps met the minimum acceptable score of 3.0 in MARS rating. The 3 apps with the highest combined scores were My Kidneys, My Health Handbook (MARS=4.68); My Food Coach (MARS=4.48); and National Kidney Foundation Malaysia (MARS=4.20). The study identified 2 general weaknesses in the existing apps: the apps fell short of accommodating advanced interactive features such as providing motivational feedback and promoting family member and caregiver participations in the app utilization.
CONCLUSIONS: The MARS rating system performed well in the app evaluation. The 3 highest ranked apps scored consistently high across the 5 dimensions specified in MARS. These apps were developed in collaboration with reputable organizations and field experts, demonstrating the importance of expert guidance in developing medical apps.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze and evaluate the contents as well as features of COVID-19 mobile apps. The findings are instrumental in helping health care professionals to identify suitable mobile apps for COVID-19 self-monitoring and education. The results of the mobile apps' assessment could potentially help mobile app developers improve or modify their existing mobile app designs to achieve optimal outcomes.
METHODS: The search for the mHealth apps available in the android-based Play Store and the iOS-based App Store was conducted between April 18 and May 5, 2020. The region of the App Store where we performed the search was the United States, and a virtual private network app was used to locate and access COVID-19 mobile apps from all countries on the Google Play Store. The inclusion criteria were apps that are related to COVID-19 with no restriction in language type. The basic features assessment criteria used for comparison were the requirement for free subscription, internet connection, education or advisory content, size of the app, ability to export data, and automated data entry. The functionality of the apps was assessed according to knowledge (information on COVID-19), tracing or mapping of COVID-19 cases, home monitoring surveillance, online consultation with a health authority, and official apps run by health authorities.
RESULTS: Of the 223 COVID-19-related mobile apps, only 30 (19.9%) found in the App Store and 28 (44.4%) in the Play Store matched the inclusion criteria. In the basic features assessment, most App Store (10/30, 33.3%) and Play Store (10/28, 35.7%) apps scored 4 out of 7 points. Meanwhile, the outcome of the functionality assessment for most App Store apps (13/30, 43.3%) was a score of 3 compared to android-based apps (10/28, 35.7%), which scored 2 (out of the maximum 5 points). Evaluation of the basic functions showed that 75.0% (n=36) of the 48 included mobile apps do not require a subscription, 56.3% (n=27) provide symptom advice, and 41.7% (n=20) have educational content. In terms of the specific functions, more than half of the included mobile apps are official mobile apps maintained by a health authority for COVID-19 information provision. Around 37.5% (n=18) and 31.3% (n=15) of the mobile apps have tracing or mapping and home monitoring surveillance functions, respectively, with only 17% (n=8) of the mobile apps equipped with an online consultation function.
CONCLUSIONS: Most iOS-based apps incorporate infographic mapping of COVID-19 cases, while most android-based apps incorporate home monitoring surveillance features instead of providing focused educational content on COVID-19. It is important to evaluate the contents and features of COVID-19 mobile apps to guide users in choosing a suitable mobile app based on their requirements.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the utility and usability of ScreenMen.
METHODS: This study used both qualitative and quantitative methods. Healthy men working in a banking institution were recruited to participate in this study. They were purposively sampled according to job position, age, education level, and screening status. Men were asked to use ScreenMen independently while the screen activities were being recorded. Once completed, retrospective think aloud with playback was conducted with men to obtain their feedback. They were asked to answer the System Usability Scale (SUS). Intention to undergo screening pre- and postintervention was also measured. Qualitative data were analyzed using a framework approach followed by thematic analysis. For quantitative data, the mean SUS score was calculated and change in intention to screening was analyzed using McNemar test.
RESULTS: In total, 24 men participated in this study. On the basis of the qualitative data, men found ScreenMen useful as they could learn more about their health risks and screening. They found ScreenMen convenient to use, which might trigger men to undergo screening. In terms of usability, men thought that ScreenMen was user-friendly and easy to understand. The key revision done on utility was the addition of a reminder function, whereas for usability, the revisions done were in terms of attracting and gaining users' trust, improving learnability, and making ScreenMen usable to all types of users. To attract men to use it, ScreenMen was introduced to users in terms of improving health instead of going for screening. Another important revision made was emphasizing the screening tests the users do not need, instead of just informing them about the screening tests they need. A Quick Assessment Mode was also added for users with limited attention span. The quantitative data showed that 8 out of 23 men (35%) planned to attend screening earlier than intended after using the ScreenMen. Furthermore, 4 out of 12 (33%) men who were in the precontemplation stage changed to either contemplation or preparation stage after using ScreenMen with P=.13. In terms of usability, the mean SUS score of 76.4 (SD 7.72) indicated that ScreenMen had good usability.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that ScreenMen was acceptable to men in terms of its utility and usability. The preliminary data suggested that ScreenMen might increase men's intention to undergo screening. This paper also presented key lessons learned from the beta testing, which is useful for public health experts and researchers when developing a user-centered mobile Web app.