| Literature DB >> 33330297 |
Fran Calvo1,2, Xavier Carbonell3, Carles Mundet4.
Abstract
The spread of viral infections remains a serious public health problem. People who inject drugs represent one of the highest-risk groups. eHealth and mHealth have been shown to be effective in improving individuals' management of their own health and their access to health care and to contribute to reducing the costs associated with certain medical interventions. People who inject drugs, including homeless people, tend to have access to technology. Young homeless people in particular are likely to use smartphones and social networking sites in ways that are similar to the general population. Despite this widespread use of technology, there are no apps designed specifically to reduce harm in people who inject drugs. The objective of this study is to analyze the development and usability testing process for an application for mobile devices, designed to complement the Needle Exchange Program. This app-the first of its kind-was developed by a public health agency, specialized professionals and people who inject drugs. We analyzed the differences in how health providers and drug users experienced the usability of the app. The participants were 61 members of multidisciplinary professional group and 16 people who inject drugs. We used a cross-sectional quantitative, observational design. First, we created and administered a questionnaire to collect the sociodemographic characteristics that could mediate the use of technology. Next participants tried the app and filled out a second questionnaire in which they rated their experience on a Likert scale from 1 to 7 in the following dimensions: overall attractiveness of the app, ease/difficulty of use, the extent to which they believed the app could improve access to injection materials, the extent to which they thought it would improve PWID's participation in the needle exchange program, overall utility, the degree to which they thought PWID would use the app, and the need for the app. To analyze the answers, we used contingency tables and compared means using a Student's t test. Finally, we conducted six audio-recorded focus groups about how the participants experienced the usability of the app. The objective of this part of the study was to classify and quantify the contributions of individuals and the group according to three predefined categories: potential benefits and positive aspects, potential obstacles or difficulties in carrying out the project, and concrete suggestions for improving the interface. There were not significant differences between the sociodemographic variables and the variables related to use of the app between professionals and PWID. Both professionals and PWID rated the app as intuitive and useful, especially the geolocation function for NEPs. Both groups also thought that the interface contained too much information and that this excess could be confusing for users. Both groups also had similar opinions about the app and its uses. An important difference between the two groups is that PWID reported that they would use the app, while professionals reported that they didn't think PWID would use it. All participants proposed improvements on the prototype, suggestions that will be applied in the creation of the definitive interface. Including professionals and patients in this sort of usability test enables researchers and developers to detect the needs of potential app users.Entities:
Keywords: drug addiction; eHealth; harm reduction; homeless; intravenous drug usage; mHealth; mobile app; needle exchange programs
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33330297 PMCID: PMC7732425 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.493321
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Technical characteristics of the application.
| Localizer of registered Needle Exchange Points |
| Geolocation of the user with respect to the services located within a radius of kilometers selected by the user |
| Offline GPS function after initial download |
| Interactive map |
| Information about each center (hours, address, phone number and picture) |
| Access to a pop-up message featuring a randomly selected health tip each time the user opens the app (25 messages in total) |
| Link to the phone number for emergency medical services |
| Possibility of using the app as a registered or anonymous user |
| The possibility to post temporary comments for other users |
| User comments are saved in an Excel file by the developers |
| The user consents to the use of his or her data for research purposes upon accessing the app for the first time |
| Multilingual: Spanish, English and Catalan |
Figure 1Screenshots of the testing version of Populi, before the modifications. Settings (Left), Main interface (Center) and information about one of the NEPs (Right).
Characteristics of the sample.
| 41.83 (11.06) | 35.67 (5.61) | 40.31 (10.30) | |
| Man | 8 (17.78) | 13 (81.25) | 21 (34.43) |
| Woman | 37 (82.22) | 3 (18.75) | 40 (65.57) |
| Primary health care center | 19 (42.22) | – | – |
| Drug treatment center | 15 (33.33) | – | – |
| Homeless shelter | 3 (6.67) | – | – |
| Pharmacy | 3 (6.67) | – | – |
| University (academic) | 2 (4.45) | – | – |
| Drop-in center | 1 (2.22) | – | – |
| Long-term drug treatment center | 1 (2.22) | – | – |
| Center for severe mental illnesses | 1 (2.22) | – | – |
| Nursing | 15 (33.33) | – | – |
| Psychology | 11 (24.44) | – | – |
| Social education/social work | 7 (15.55) | – | – |
| Medicine | 6 (13.34) | – | – |
| Pharmacy | 3(6.67) | – | – |
| Others | 3 (6.67) | – | – |
| Owned cellphone | 45 (100) | 15 (95.75) | 60 (98.36) |
| Owned smartphone | 45 (100) | 14 (87.50) | 59 (96.72) |
| Currently IEH or unstable housing | – | 13 (81.25) | – |
Personal use of ICT by group of participants.
| Daily | 54 (88.5) | 39 (86.7) | 15 (93.7) | 0.583 | 1 | 0.403 |
| Weekly | 7 (11.5) | 6 (13.3) | 1 (6.3) | |||
| Daily | 54 (88.5) | 39 (86.7) | 15 (93.7) | 0.583 | 1 | 0.403 |
| Occasionally or never | 7 (11.5) | 6 (13.3) | 1 (6.3) | |||
| Use of eHealth apps (any degree of frequency) | 21 (34.4) | 20 (44.4) | 1 (6.2) | 7.63 | 1 | 0.004 |
Average post-test scores and participant characteristics.
| Degree of appeal | 4.9 (1.4) | 4.8 (1.3) | 5.1 (1.6) | 0.406 | 0.689 | 4.8 (1.4) | 5.0 (1.4) | −0.516 | 0.609 | 4.9 (1.4) | 5.2 (1.5) | −0.473 | 0.686 | 4.8 (1.3) | 5.3 (1.6) | −0.900 | 0.387 | 4.8 (1.3) | 5.0 (1.4) | −0.331 | 0.743 |
| Degree of simplicity | 5.7 (1.0) | 5.7 (1.1) | 5.8 (1.0) | 0.255 | 0.80 | 5.7 (1.1) | 5.7 (1.0) | 0.026 | 0.979 | 5.7 (1.0) | 5.5 (1.0) | −0.651 | 0.548 | 5.7 (1.1) | 5.7 (0.49) | −0.236 | 0.828 | 5.9 (0.91) | 5.6 (1.1) | 1.16 | 0.250 |
| Will improve access to injection materials | 5.6 (0.99) | 5.7 (0.9) | 5.9 (1.1) | 0.865 | 0.395 | 5.8 (1.0) | 5.7 (0.99) | 0.023 | 0.982 | 5.8 (1.0) | 5.5 (0.55) | −0.950 | 0.383 | 5.8 (1.0) | 5.7 (0.76) | −0.333 | 0.757 | 5.8 (1.0) | 5.7 (1.0) | 0.297 | 0.768 |
| Users will post comments | 5.5 (1.1) | 5.4 (1.2) | 5.7 (1.0) | 1.09 | 0.282 | 5.6 (1.0) | 5.5 (1.1) | 0.470 | 0.641 | 5.5 (1.1) | 5.3 (0.82) | −0.708 | 0.516 | 5.5 (1.1) | 5.3 (1.1) | −0.811 | 0.454 | 5.5 (1.0) | 5.5 (1.1) | 0.213 | 0.833 |
| Overall usefulness | 5.7 (1.1) | 5.6 (1.1) | 6 (1.0) | 1.27 | 0.211 | 5.7 (0.91) | 5.7 (1.2) | 0.206 | 0.837 | 5.7 (1.2) | 5.7 (1.0) | −0.240 | 0.835 | 5.7 (1.2) | 6.0 (0.58) | −0.524 | 0.638 | 5.7 (1.1) | 5.7 (1.1) | 0.188 | 0.852 |
| Belief that it will be used | 4.9 (1.1) | 4.9 (1.1) | 4.9 (0.95) | −0.187 | 0.853 | 5.1 (1.1) | 4.8 (1.1) | 0.941 | 0.353 | 4.9 (1.1) | 4.8 (0.75) | −0.222 | 0.835 | 4.9 (1.1) | 5.3 (0.49) | −1.15 | 0.282 | 4.9 (1.0) | 4.9 (1.0) | 0.182 | 0.856 |
| Belief that the app was necessary | 5.9 (0.95) | 6.0 (0.92) | 5.8 (1.0) | −0.631 | 0.534 | 5.8 (0.98) | 6.0 (0.94) | −0.560 | 0.579 | 5.9 (0.99) | 6.2 (0.41) | −0.382 | 0.741 | 5.9 (.99) | 6.1 (0.69) | −0.396 | 0.722 | 5.9 (1.0) | 6.0 (9.4) | 0.005 | 0.996 |
Professionals.
People who inject drugs.
Occasionally or never.
Contents of contributions made by participants and differences by target group.
| Most appealing aspects. Potential benefits | Simple | 49 | 36 (80.0) | 13 (81.2) | 0.085 | 0.539 |
| Listing of NEPs by distance | 39 | 26 (57.8) | 13 (81.2) | 2.82 | 0.093 | |
| Geolocation will improve access to injection materials | 37 | 31 (68.9) | 6 (37.5) | 4.87 | 0.027 | |
| Useful for improving links between PWID and NEP services | 36 | 33 (73.3) | 3 (18.7) | 14.5 | <0.001 | |
| Intuitive | 35 | 25 (55.6) | 10 (62.5) | 0.233 | 0.629 | |
| The health tip is a good way to connect with PWID | 35 | 29 (64.4) | 6 (37.5) | 3.50 | 0.061 | |
| Access and opinions are anonymous | 29 | 18 (40.0) | 11 (68.7) | 3.91 | 0.048 | |
| Understands that PWID and homeless people have mobile phones like everyone else | 20 | 9 (20.0) | 11 (68.7) | 12.7 | <0.001 | |
| Free | 14 | 5 (11.1) | 9 (56.2) | 13.6 | 0.001 | |
| Available in multiple languages | 7 | 7 (15.6) | 0 (0) | 2.81 | 0.104 | |
| Main obstacles and difficulties | Too much information on the main interface | 40 | 27 (60.0) | 13 (81.2) | 2.36 | 0.124 |
| The interface's distribution in two columns is confusing | 38 | 27 (60.0) | 11 (68.7) | 0.385 | 0.535 | |
| Some difficulties in downloading it as a web-app | 29 | 18 (40.0) | 11 (68.7) | 3.91 | 0.048 | |
| Access problems (phone signals, data plans) | 17 | 3 (6.7) | 14 (87.5) | 38.4 | <0.001 | |
| PWIDs lack mobile devices | 13 | 13 (28.9) | 0 (0) | 5.87 | 0.011 | |
| PWIDs' lack interest. Reluctance to use the app | 12 | 12 (26.7) | 0 (0) | 5.31 | 0.017 | |
| Not useful if the PWID already regularly visits a specific NEP | 12 | 12 (26.7) | 0 (0) | 5.31 | 0.017 | |
| Irregular possession of mobile devices | 11 | 5 (11.1) | 6 (37.5) | 5.56 | 0.028 | |
| Professionals may not recommend or support the project | 5 | 5 (11.1) | 0 (0) | 1.94 | 0.205 | |
| PWID will not be open to receiving information via the app | 3 | 3 (6.7) | 0 (0) | 1.12 | 0.394 | |
| Aspects to improve | Change the main interface so that there is only one column | 50 | 35 (77.8) | 15 (93.7) | 2.04 | 0.146 |
| Give more prominence to the map than to the rest of the information about each NEP | 36 | 21 (46.7) | 15 (93.7) | 10.8 | 0.001 | |
| Use the same logo for each type of service, and identify the services more clearly | 32 | 23 (51.1) | 9 (56.2) | 0.125 | 0.724 | |
| Increase the number of health tips | 23 | 19 (42.2) | 4 (25.0) | 1.49 | 0.222 | |
| Increase the geolocation range beyond 30 km | 19 | 14 (31.1) | 5 (31.2) | 0.072 | 0.595 | |
| Highlight the NEPs that are open 24 h or nights and weekends | 16 | 11 (24.4) | 5 (31.2) | 0.283 | 0.411 | |
| Apply filters to order the information | 15 | 12 (26.7) | 3 (18.7) | 0.399 | 0.395 | |
| Reduce the amount of information about each NEP | 9 | 0 (0) | 9 (56.2) | 29.7 | <0.001 | |
| Include the term “Pharmacy” before the name of each pharmacy | 7 | 5 (11.1) | 2 (12.5) | 0.022 | 0.597 | |
| Include information about the importance of returning used needles | 6 | 6 (13.3) | 0 (0) | 2.37 | 0.147 | |
| Show only the points that are open at the time of the search | 4 | 0 (0) | 4 (25.0) | 12.0 | 0.001 | |
| Make the user participation section more attractive | 3 | 3 (6.7) | 0 (0) | 1.12 | 0.394 | |
Professionals,
People who inject drugs,
Degrees of freedom = 1.
Figure 2Screenshots of the interface after the implementation of the changes suggested during the usability test. Pop-up health tip (upper left), settings (lower left), main interface with geolocation results.