M T Baysari1, J I Westbrook. 1. Dr. Melissa Baysari, Centre for Health Systems & Safety Research, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia, E-mail: melissa.baysari@mq.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine if human factors methods were applied in the design, development, and evaluation of mobile applications developed to facilitate aspects of patient-centered care coordination. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (2013-2014) for studies describing the design or the evaluation of a mobile health application that aimed to support patients' active involvement in the coordination of their care. RESULTS: 34 papers met the inclusion criteria. Applications ranged from tools that supported self-management of specific conditions (e.g. asthma) to tools that provided coaching or education. Twelve of the 15 papers describing the design or development of an app reported the use of a human factors approach. The most frequently used methods were interviews and surveys, which often included an exploration of participants' current use of information technology. Sixteen papers described the evaluation of a patient application in practice. All of them adopted a human factors approach, typically an examination of the use of app features and/or surveys or interviews which enquired about patients' views of the effects of using the app on their behaviors (e.g. medication adherence), knowledge, and relationships with healthcare providers. No study in our review assessed the impact of mobile applications on health outcomes. CONCLUSION: The potential of mobile health applications to assist patients to more actively engage in the management of their care has resulted in a large number of applications being developed. Our review showed that human factors approaches are nearly always adopted to some extent in the design, development, and evaluation of mobile applications.
OBJECTIVES: To examine if human factors methods were applied in the design, development, and evaluation of mobile applications developed to facilitate aspects of patient-centered care coordination. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (2013-2014) for studies describing the design or the evaluation of a mobile health application that aimed to support patients' active involvement in the coordination of their care. RESULTS: 34 papers met the inclusion criteria. Applications ranged from tools that supported self-management of specific conditions (e.g. asthma) to tools that provided coaching or education. Twelve of the 15 papers describing the design or development of an app reported the use of a human factors approach. The most frequently used methods were interviews and surveys, which often included an exploration of participants' current use of information technology. Sixteen papers described the evaluation of a patient application in practice. All of them adopted a human factors approach, typically an examination of the use of app features and/or surveys or interviews which enquired about patients' views of the effects of using the app on their behaviors (e.g. medication adherence), knowledge, and relationships with healthcare providers. No study in our review assessed the impact of mobile applications on health outcomes. CONCLUSION: The potential of mobile health applications to assist patients to more actively engage in the management of their care has resulted in a large number of applications being developed. Our review showed that human factors approaches are nearly always adopted to some extent in the design, development, and evaluation of mobile applications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Human factors; evaluation; mHealth; mobile applications; patients
Authors: José Antonio Cano Martín; Borja Martínez-Pérez; Isabel de la Torre-Díez; Miguel López-Coronado Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Annette DeVito Dabbs; Mi-Kyung Song; Brad Myers; Robert P Hawkins; Jill Aubrecht; Alex Begey; Mary Connolly; Ruosha Li; Joseph M Pilewski; Christian A Bermudez; Mary Amanda Dew Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Arkadiusz Stopczynski; Carsten Stahlhut; Jakob Eg Larsen; Michael Kai Petersen; Lars Kai Hansen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Aimee M Layton; James Whitworth; James Peacock; Matthew N Bartels; Patricia A Jellen; Byron M Thomashow Journal: Int J Telemed Appl Date: 2014-12-11
Authors: Sophie C Reid; Sylvia D Kauer; Stephen J C Hearps; Alexander H D Crooke; Angela S Khor; Lena A Sanci; George C Patton Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Jennifer N Stinson; Chitra Lalloo; Lauren Harris; Lisa Isaac; Fiona Campbell; Stephen Brown; Danielle Ruskin; Allan Gordon; Marilyn Galonski; Leah R Pink; Norman Buckley; James Lorne Henry; Meghan White; Allia Karim Journal: Pain Res Manag Date: 2014-07-07 Impact factor: 3.037
Authors: Christie F Cheng; Nicole E Werner; Nadia Doutcheva; Gemma Warner; Hanna J Barton; Michelle M Kelly; Mary L Ehlenbach; Teresa Wagner; Sara Finesilver; Barbara J Katz; Carrie Nacht; Ryan J Coller Journal: Hosp Pediatr Date: 2020-07-02
Authors: Danielle E Jake-Schoffman; Valerie J Silfee; Molly E Waring; Edwin D Boudreaux; Rajani S Sadasivam; Sean P Mullen; Jennifer L Carey; Rashelle B Hayes; Eric Y Ding; Gary G Bennett; Sherry L Pagoto Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Emre Sezgin; Garey Noritz; Alexander Elek; Kimberly Conkol; Steve Rust; Matthew Bailey; Robert Strouse; Aarti Chandawarkar; Victoria von Sadovszky; Simon Lin; Yungui Huang Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Fernando Suárez-Obando; Carlos Gómez-Restrepo; Sergio Castro-Diaz; Paola Paez-Rojas; José M Uribe-Restrepo; John A Naslund; William C Torrey; Leonardo Cubillos; Sophia M Bartels; Makeda J Williams; Lisa A Marsch Journal: Rev Colomb Psiquiatr (Engl Ed) Date: 2021-07-10