Hwayoung Cho1, Po-Yin Yen2, Dawn Dowding3, Jacqueline A Merrill4, Rebecca Schnall5. 1. School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States. Electronic address: hc2787@columbia.edu. 2. Institute for Informatics, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63108, United States; Goldfarb School of Nursing, BJC HealthCare, St. Louis, MO 63108, United States. 3. Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 4. School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States; Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States. 5. School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report a methodological approach for the development of a usable mHealth application (app). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This work was guided by a 3-level stratified view of health information technology (IT) usability evaluation framework. We first describe a number of methodologies for operationalizing each level of the framework. Following the description of each methodology, we present a case study which illustrates the use of our preferred methodologies for the development of a mHealth app. At level 1 (user-task), we applied a card sorting technique to guide the information architecture of a mobile HIV symptom self-management app, entitled mVIP. At level 2 (user-task-system), we conducted a usability evaluation of mVIP in a laboratory setting through end-user usability testing and heuristic evaluation with informatics experts. At level 3 (user-task-system-environment), usability of mVIP was evaluated in a real-world setting following the use of the app during a 3-month trial. RESULTS: The 3-level usability evaluation guided our work exploring in-depth interactions between the user, task, system, and environment. Integral to the findings from the 3-level usability evaluation, we iteratively refined the app's content, functionality, and interface to meet the needs of our intended end-users. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The stratified view of the health IT usability evaluation framework is a useful methodological approach for the design, development, and evaluation of mHealth apps. The methodological recommendations for using the theoretical framework can inform future usability studies of mHealth apps.
OBJECTIVE: To report a methodological approach for the development of a usable mHealth application (app). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This work was guided by a 3-level stratified view of health information technology (IT) usability evaluation framework. We first describe a number of methodologies for operationalizing each level of the framework. Following the description of each methodology, we present a case study which illustrates the use of our preferred methodologies for the development of a mHealth app. At level 1 (user-task), we applied a card sorting technique to guide the information architecture of a mobile HIV symptom self-management app, entitled mVIP. At level 2 (user-task-system), we conducted a usability evaluation of mVIP in a laboratory setting through end-user usability testing and heuristic evaluation with informatics experts. At level 3 (user-task-system-environment), usability of mVIP was evaluated in a real-world setting following the use of the app during a 3-month trial. RESULTS: The 3-level usability evaluation guided our work exploring in-depth interactions between the user, task, system, and environment. Integral to the findings from the 3-level usability evaluation, we iteratively refined the app's content, functionality, and interface to meet the needs of our intended end-users. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The stratified view of the health IT usability evaluation framework is a useful methodological approach for the design, development, and evaluation of mHealth apps. The methodological recommendations for using the theoretical framework can inform future usability studies of mHealth apps.
Authors: Santosh Kumar; Wendy J Nilsen; Amy Abernethy; Audie Atienza; Kevin Patrick; Misha Pavel; William T Riley; Albert Shar; Bonnie Spring; Donna Spruijt-Metz; Donald Hedeker; Vasant Honavar; Richard Kravitz; R Craig Lefebvre; David C Mohr; Susan A Murphy; Charlene Quinn; Vladimir Shusterman; Dallas Swendeman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Saee Hamine; Emily Gerth-Guyette; Dunia Faulx; Beverly B Green; Amy Sarah Ginsburg Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Hwayoung Cho; Dakota Powell; Adrienne Pichon; Lisa M Kuhns; Robert Garofalo; Rebecca Schnall Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Silke Schwarz; David D Martin; Arndt Büssing; Olga Kulikova; Hanno Krafft; Moritz Gwiasda; Sara Hamideh Kerdar; Ingo Fingerhut; Ekkehart Jenetzky Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 3.390