Abstract
The use of mobile devices by healthcare professionals has led to rapid growth in the development of mobile healthcare applications designed to improve healthcare services. This study was conducted to assess the acceptability and usability of a mobile application for health professionals in relation to their work in hospitalization at home. A mixed methods approach was used. Acceptance, included the satisfaction of the professionals, attitudes toward using the application, and intention or willingness to continue using the application. Usability tests were performed in laboratory analyzing five controlled clinical tasks, and the interaction of the participants with the mobile application was based on the six basic facial expressions published by the American Psychological Association. Perceived satisfaction was assessed using the computer system usability questionnaire. Thirty-two participants completed the task scenarios and questionnaire. More than 90 per cent of participants were able to complete the tasks with only some difficult with vital signs. Satisfaction had a score of 6.18/7 (SD: 0.76), and recommendation of the mobile application had a score of 6.21/7 (SD: 0.81). This study showed a significant usability and acceptability of this mobile application, in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Mobile health (mHealth), or the use of mobile devices in medicine and health, is a sub-category of eHealth1. Health interventions are designed to improve healthcare services, and they may be divided into different areas, including medical records and communication2,3. We find three main applications. Mobile electronic health records (EHRs) used by healthcare professionals. Personal health record applications that patients can use to examine and control their own health data. And applications that allow direct patient control over records of specific diseases. The use of EHRs is expected to lead to improved efficiency, better communication, improved accessibility, and enhanced quality of care4,5,6,7. These services and applications that utilize mobile functionality are actively being developed in hospitals, organizations, and other groups8,9,10,11,12.
Several research studies have been performed on mHealth applications, and the results have indicated that well-designed mHealth applications can empower patients, improve medication adherence, and reduce the cost of health care13,14. To assess and improve upon the usability of mHealth applications, a wide range of usability evaluation methods (UEMs) are available to detect problems in user–system interaction. Employing multiple methods enables a more comprehensive assessment of the usability of eHealth interventions than using a single evaluation method15. The UEMs allow the identification of those facets of the interaction that need improvement16,17,18. To determine the usability of any new technology, appropriate and rigorously developed measures must be employed19,20,21,22. Although the use of mHealth has increased rapidly in recent decades, there is limited scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness23,24,25,26,27,28,29, possibly because of a lack of reliable information regarding proven benefits30,31.
Study context
The mobile health-app that is the focus of this study, AppADIm (Mobile Integrated Healthcare at Home), was originally developed with the aim that the health professionals (doctors and nurses) of home hospitalization units could have secure access to patients’ relevant medical information as clinical notes, records of vital signs and medical orders. Record follow-up data at home, and automatically upload data to the hospital EHR, thereby saving the professionals’ time and avoiding transcription errors. Our previous study results on the developed AppADIm observed that 86% of the professionals used it on a regular basis and considered it an improvement for their daily work. The total theoretically saved hours in medical information transcription were 256 per year, which would correspond to 36.5 days (7-h shifts). The conclusion was that using an application to consult and update a patient’s health record at home avoids transcription errors and saves professionals’ time32. AppADIm has been evolucionating during the last years and a second version is currently in use. Although the mobile application represents an important advance and an improvement in the care provided by professionals, it is currently not being used homogeneously by all health professionals and, consequently, paper documentation is still being used during home visits. This means that patient data and records continue to be duplicated, which is a waste of time and does not sufficiently improve clinical practice or patient safety.
The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and usability of the AppADIm for health professionals working with patients’ electronic records at home and to suggest further improvements to the application.
Methods
Study design
In this study, different methodologies and techniques were used to evaluate the acceptability and usability of the mobile application, which is already described in the literature31,32,33. Usability is defined as “the extent to which a product can be used by specific users to achieve specific goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specific context of use”34. Acceptance, for the purpose of the study, included the satisfaction of the professionals, attitudes toward using the application, and intention or willingness to continue using the application35.
This study was conducted in three phases: Phase (A) Researchers developed an ad hoc questionnaire to explore the use of new technologies. Phase (B) Tests of the usability of the mobile application were performed by the participants while the interaction of the participants with the mobile application was analyzed using the "Think-aloud" approach and facial gesturing, with a categorical approach, based on the six basic facial expressions published by the American Psychological Association (happiness, surprise, fear, disgust, anger, and sadness)36. Phase (C) Using the computer system usability questionnaire (CSUQ)37, user-perceived satisfaction in aspects related to the ease of use, ease of learning, simplicity, effectiveness, information, and user interface of the mobile application were assessed.
Recruitment
Participants were selected through an open call The study was carried out with professionals who were unfamiliar with AppADIm. Candidates from different areas of healthcare and with different years of care experience were included. All of them were identified with an ID to ensure confidentiality. Medical professionals, nurses, and health professionals from different areas of care, such as hospitals, health centers, geriatric residences, home care, and others, were included. All health professionals who had worked with a mobile healthcare data management application comparable to AppADIm were excluded from the study to make the sample more homogeneous in relation to the use of this technology. Thirty-two participants were included in the study and one candidate was excluded38, which is like the number employed in previous studies assessing the acceptance and usability of health apps39,40.
Data Collection in the three phases
Phase A: socio-demographic data and the use of new technologies
Before evaluating the mobile application, the 32 participants completed an online questionnaire, via Google forms, regarding socio-demographic data and entailed general questions as years of experience, training, field of work, personal use of internet and the use of new technologies, developed by the authors based on the recommendations described in the bibliography and validated by a panel of experts.
Phase B: mobile application usability testing
The usability tests of this study were performed at the Center of Simulation and Innovation in Health (CSIS), which is a center dependent on the School of Health Sciences of Tecnocampus, located in the Tecnocampus Science Park. The participants individually performed the usability tests of the mobile application in a room equipped with a filming system. During the tests, the participants completed the tasks that two researchers were presenting from an adjoining room. The tasks evaluated in the usability tests are shown in Table 1. The criteria were tested according to the usability measures proposed in the ISO standard 9241–1141,42. The evaluation followed a specific order to ensure that every user had an individual perspective of each of the tasks to be performed. During the procedure, each participant’s performance was recorded with cameras at different angles, and the researchers observed the reactions and movements from the adjoining room through a double mirror. Simultaneously, mobile phone screens were recorded using an external camera, which provided images or screen recordings (Multimedia appendix 1). Participants were asked to voice any feelings, doubts, or limitations they experienced during the exercise (think-aloud) to supplement the information received. The researchers registered all aspects directly related to the effectiveness and efficiency of the participants and, subsequently, analyzed the interaction of the participants with the mobile application through facial gesturing, with a categorical approach, using the six basic facial expressions.
Phase C: CSUQ
Finally, all participants completed the CSUQ37. This is the Spanish adaptation of the post-study system usability questionnaire43. The CSUQ consists of 16 items rated on a 7-point scale (strongly disagree1 to strongly agree7), and a general satisfaction scale and three subscales: system utility (items 1–6), information quality (items 7–12), and interface quality (items 13–15). Higher scores indicate better usability.
Data analysis
Data analysis was based on audio and video recordings collected by cameras. The voice reactions of the participants in the audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Incident notes, characterized by comments, silences, or repeated actions, and error messages, were collected through the recordings. The obtained content was analyzed by two members of the research team. Transcripts and critical incidents were also reviewed to identify the most common usability concerns. In any case of discrepancy in content analysis, a third-party reviewer was consulted. The results of the CSUQ questionnaire were analyzed using the statistical program Jamovi. A descriptive, inferential, and univariate study was conducted. In the univariate analysis, the quantitative variables were expressed as centralization and dispersion parameters (mean, standard deviation, etc.), and as qualitative variables, via frequencies and percentages.
Ethical approval
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the School of Health Sciences of Tecnocampus (CODE: 33/18).
Consent to participate
Participants signed informed consent forms. To ensure confidentiality, only the principal investigator had access to the identity data. The results obtained will be maintained for five years.
Results
Thirty-two participants completed the task scenarios and questionnaire. The main characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table 2. The majority were female and nurses with a high percentage of postgraduate training and the most (68,5%) had at least 10 years of experience. Almost half of participants (46,9%) had the hospital ward as working area and 75% of participants used at least one mobile health application.
Table 3 shows the effectiveness of participants that were able to complete the task, the efficiency—i.e., whether end-users can locate the resources using the quickest and most direct route through the application—which is measured by the number of “additional” clicks required for the actions, and the time that participants need to complete the tasks, compared to an expert user.
More than 90 per cent of participants were able to complete the task with only some difficult with vital signs (task 5). The number of additional clicks needed was one or less except for the task 5 (vital signs) where participants did more than four. The participants used two times clicks than an expert user.
Various comments were made during the thinking-aloud process. Of the 14 comments recorded, 78.6% (11/14) were related to the task of consulting and recording vital signs (task 5).
Figure 1 shows the interaction of the participants with the application. Most of the surprised reactions were noted during task 5 (consulting and recording vital signs, 50% (16/32)), followed by task 4 (consult and register a clinical note, 31% (10/32)), and task 6 (consult and verify the prescribed medical orders of the patient, 25% (8/32)).
The results from the CSUQ show that the participants were, overall, satisfied with the usability of the application (see Table 4 for details), as can be seen in the general questions section of the questionnaire. Overall, I was satisfied with the mobile application had a score of 6.18/7 (SD: 0.76), and I would recommend the use of the mobile application to other professionals had a score of 6.21/7 (SD: 0.81). Regarding the system quality, information quality, and interface quality, the best-rated category was the quality of the interface, with an average score of 6.04/7 (SD: 0.22), and the lowest rated was the quality of the information, with an average score of 5.35/7 (SD: 0.90).
Discussion
The use of UEMs during the development and testing process of health applications is commonly recommended in the literature44,45. Consequently, this study aimed to critically appraise the acceptability and usability of the aforenoted mobile application for health professionals using different available UEMs to detect problems in user–system interactions and to suggest improvements to the application.
Usability tests have shown that the mobile application is efficient (which is measured by the number of “additional” clicks required for the actions and the time that participants need to complete the tasks, compared to an expert user) and effective (which is measured by the percentage of tasks completed). This is because most of the participants did not experience any difficulties performing most of the tasks with the application; moreover, only a few errors were encountered, and the time required to complete a task was comparable to that of an expert participant. This is considered an accomplishment because none of the participants had previously used the application. The most difficult task for the participants was to consult and record vital signs. In addition, most comments during the thinking-aloud process, as well as the tasks wherein the participants interacted significantly with the mobile application through facial gesturing, were also related to consulting and recording vital signs.
Overall, in this study, end-users found the mobile application to be highly usable, as indicated by the survey data (CSUQ), with no major bugs and no issues with the flow of activities. In addition, most participants expressed satisfaction with the mobile application and would recommend the use of the mobile application to other professionals.
These results suggest that the quality of the information provided with the application should be improved, and that the main task to be improved in terms of accessibility and ease of use is the consultation and registration of clinical notes of treatment. Analyzing the results obtained in a broader sense, we observe that the acceptance and satisfaction of the study participants who do not use the mobile application daily is high, like those obtained for professionals who do use it as a professional tool32. This suggests that, in addition to improving specific aspects of the application, a broader analysis should be performed regarding the reasons for the current limited use of the application among all professionals and the preferred use of paper for queries and to record clinical data in a complementary manner. Moreover, in the field of the Hospitalization at Home we need to take in account the aspect of the communication network. Sometimes the use of or non-use of a mobile application are related to weak network services in the area.
Some researchers have posited that one of the reasons that might explain the low usage rates, resistance, rejection of health information technology, and the request for alternative methods is that in the adoption of mobile applications and technologies, functional features and advanced techniques are prioritized, whereas the needs and characteristics of the end-users are neglected46,47. Other studies show that the most influential factor in the use of mobile applications is performance expectancy48, which is understood as the degree to which the user expects that the system will help them attain gains in job performance. Other researchers have stated that the determining factors are the perceived importance of information security, process orientation, documentation intensity, and eHealth-related knowledge49. Therefore, healthcare organizations should, in addition to designing and developing mobile applications that guarantee evidence-based health informatics50 and the utilization of UEMs, also consider performance expectancy as a determining factor in the adoption of new mobile devices; additionally, they should thoroughly analyze the end-users’ needs to identify useful functions for their workflows51.
Limitations
The limitations of the present study include the sample size, although other studies have used similar or lower samples52, and the more presence of the nurse related to the doctor participants. Moreover, the study design did not allow for “learnability” to be measured because of the small sample size and the high efficiency and effectiveness of task scenario completion.
Conclusions
There is clear scientific evidence for the ability of mobile handheld technology to positively impact rapid response, transcription error prevention, information accessibility, and data management in healthcare settings, as well as the beneficial impact of this technology on aspects of healthcare delivery53. This study has shown that the usability of this mobile application, in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction, is significant; however, it is not the only criterion that favors its use in daily practice. Therefore, as other scholars have also noted, further studies are needed to explore the significant antecedents of this mobile application, i.e., system and information quality and the limitations of mobile devices46. Future directions may include improving data integration into the health care system, an interoperable application platform allowing access to electronic health record data, cloud-based personal health records across health care networks, and increasing mobile application prescription by health care providers2.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
Abbreviations
- CSIS:
-
Center of Simulation and Innovation in Health
- CSUQ:
-
Computer system usability questionnaire
- EHRs:
-
Electronic health records
- mHealth:
-
Mobile health
- UEMs:
-
Usability evaluation methods
References
Eysenbach, G. What is e-health?. J. Med. Internet Res. 3(2), e20 (2001).
Kao, C.-K. & Liebovitz, D. M. Consumer mobile health Apps: Current state, barriers, and future directions. PM&R 9(5), S106–S115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.02.018 (2017).
Merrell, R. C. & Doarn, C. R. m-Health. Telemed. J. e-Health 20(2), 99–101. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2014.9997 (2014).
Tsai, C. H. et al. Effects of electronic health record implementation and barriers to adoption and use: A scoping review and qualitative analysis of the content. Life 10(12), 327. https://doi.org/10.3390/life10120327 (2020).
Kruse, C. S. et al. Impact of electronic health records on long-term care facilities: Systematic review. JMIR Med. Inform. 5(3), e35 (2017).
Atasoy, H., Greenwood, B. N. & McCullough, J. S. The digitization of patient care: A review of the effects of electronic health records on health care quality and utilization. Annu. Rev. Public Health 40(1), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044206 (2019).
Alami, H. et al. Rethinking the electronic health record through the quadruple aim: Time to align its value with the health system. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 20(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-1048-9 (2020).
Boccalandro, E. A., Dallari, G. & Mannucci, P. M. Telemedicine and telerehabilitation: Current and forthcoming applications in haemophilia. Blood Transfus. 17(5), 385–390 (2019).
Kernebeck, S. et al. Impact of mobile health and medical applications on clinical practice in gastroenterology. World J. Gastroenterol. 26(29), 4182–4197 (2020).
Pires, I. M. et al. A research on the classification and applicability of the mobile health applications. J. Pers. Med. 10(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm10010011 (2020).
Khairat, S. et al. A mixed-methods evaluation framework for electronic health records usability studies. J. Biomed. Inform. 94, 103175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103175 (2019).
Cox, C. E. et al. Palliative care planner: A pilot study to evaluate acceptability and usability of an electronic health records system-integrated, needs-targeted app platform. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 15(1), 59–68 (2018).
Parmanto, B. et al. iMHere: A novel mHealth system for supporting self-care in management of complex and chronic conditions. JMIR mhealth uhealth 1(2), e10 (2013).
Seto, E. et al. Perceptions and experiences of heart failure patients and clinicians on the use of mobile phone-based telemonitoring. J. Med. Internet Res. 14(1), e25 (2012).
Davis, R., Gardner, J. & Schnall, R. A review of usability evaluation methods and their use for testing eHealth HIV interventions. Curr. HIV/AIDS Rep. 17(3), 203–218 (2020).
Jaspers, M. W. M. A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: Methodological aspects and empirical evidence. Int. J. Med. Inform. 78(5), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.10.002 (2009).
Llorens-Vernet, P. & Miró, J. Standards for mobile health–related apps: Systematic review and development of a guide. JMIR mHealth uHealth 8(3), e13057 (2020).
Inal, Y., Wake, J. D., Guribye, F. & Nordgreen, T. Usability evaluations of mobile mental health technologies: Systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 22(1), e15337 (2020).
Harrison, R., Flood, D. & Duce, D. Usability of mobile applications: Literature review and rationale for a new usability model. J. Interact. Sci. 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-0827-1-1 (2013).
Almeida, A. F., Rocha, N. P. & Silva, A. G. Methodological quality of manuscripts reporting on the usability of mobile applications for pain assessment and management: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17(3), 785. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030785 (2020).
Kampmeijer, R., Pavlova, M., Tambor, M., Golinowska, S. & Groot, W. The use of e-health and m-health tools in health promotion and primary prevention among older adults: A systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 16(S5), 290. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1522-3 (2016).
Georgsson, M. A review of usability methods used in the evaluation of mobile health applications for diabetes. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 4(273), 228–233 (2020).
Alessa, T., Hawley, M. S., Hock, E. S. & de Witte, L. Smartphone apps to support self-management of hypertension: Review and content analysis. JMIR mHealth uHealth 7(5), e13645 (2019).
Veazie, S. et al. Rapid evidence review of mobile applications for self-management of diabetes. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 33(7), 1167–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4410-1 (2018).
Aranda-Jan, C. B., Mohutsiwa-Dibe, N. & Loukanova, S. Systematic review on what works, what does not work and why of implementation of mobile health (mHealth) projects in Africa. BMC Public Health 14(1), 188. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-188 (2014).
Free, C. et al. The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 10(1), e1001363. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001363 (2013).
de la Vega, R. & Miró, J. mHealth: A strategic field without a solid scientific soul. A systematic review of pain-related apps. PLoS ONE 9(7), e101312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101312 (2014).
Maramba, I., Chatterjee, A. & Newman, C. Methods of usability testing in the development of eHealth applications: A scoping review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 126, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.03.018 (2019).
Larbi, D. et al. Methods and evaluation criteria for apps and digital interventions for diabetes self-management: Systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 22(7), e18480 (2020).
Brender McNair, J. Theoretical basis of health IT evaluation. Stud Health Technol. Inform. 222, 39–52 (2016).
Lyles, C. R., Sarkar, U. & Osborn, C. Y. Getting a technology-based diabetes intervention ready for prime time: A review of usability testing studies. Curr. Diabetes Rep. 14(10), 534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-014-0534-9 (2014).
Diaz Gegundez, M., Manzano Monfort, G., Garcia Vilches, J., Gomez de Argila, I. Implementación de una Aplicación móvil para trabajar con la Historia Clínica Electrónica de los pacientes en domicilio Hosp a Domic 3(3):203. https://doi.org/10.22585/hospdomic.v3i3.80 (2019).
Cho, H., Yen, P.-Y., Dowding, D., Merrill, J. A. & Schnall, R. A multi-level usability evaluation of mobile health applications: A case study. J. Biomed. Inform. 86, 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2018.08.012 (2018).
Abran, A., Khelifi, A. & Suryn, W. Usability meanings and interpretations in ISO standards. Softw. Qual. J. 11, 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025869312943 (2003).
Rahimi, B., Nadri, H., Lotfnezhad Afshar, H. & Timpka, T. A systematic review of the technology acceptance model in health informatics. Appl. Clin. Inform. 09(03), 604–634. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1668091 (2018).
American Medical Association | AMA. https://www.ama-assn.org/.
Aguilar, MIH., González, A de la G., Miranda, MPS. & Villegas, AAG. Adaptación al español del cuestionario de usabilidad de sistemas informáticos CSUQ/Spanish language adaptation of the computer systems usability questionnaire CSUQ. RECI Rev Iberoam las Ciencias Comput e Informática. 4(8), 84–99 (2016).
Alroobaea, R. & Mayhew, P. J. How many participants are really enough for usability studies? In: 2014 Science and Information Conference IEEE 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1109/SAI.2014.6918171 (2014)
van der Weegen, S., Verwey, R., Tange, H., Spreeuwenberg, M. & de Witte, L. Usability testing of a monitoring and feedback tool to stimulate physical activity. Patient Prefer Adherence 8, 311–322 (2014).
Hochstenbach, L. M. J., Zwakhalen, S. M. G., Courtens, A. M., van Kleef, M. & de Witte, L. P. Feasibility of a mobile and web-based intervention to support self-management in outpatients with cancer pain. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 23, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2016.03.009 (2016).
Arrue, M., Fajardo, I., Lopez, J. M. & Vigo, M. Interdependence between technical web accessibility and usability: Its influence on web quality models. Int. J. Web Eng. Technol. 3(3), 307. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWET.2007.012059 (2007).
Swann, M. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT’s). https://www.ergonomic.solutions/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ISO9241Summary.pdf
Lewis, J. R. Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ using data from five years of usability studies. Int. J.Hum. Comput. Interact. 14(3–4), 463–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2002.9669130 (2002).
Middleton, B. et al. Enhancing patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: Recommendations from AMIA. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 20(e1), e2-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001458 (2013).
Ratwani, R. M., Zachary Hettinger, A., Kosydar, A., Fairbanks, R. J. & Hodgkins, M. L. A framework for evaluating electronic health record vendor user-centered design and usability testing processes. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 24(e1), e35–e39. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw092 (2017).
Holden, R. J. & Karsh, B.-T. The technology acceptance model: Its past and its future in health care. J. Biomed. Inform. 43(1), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002 (2010).
Ammenwerth, E. Technology acceptance models in health informatics: TAM and UTAUT. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 30(263), 64–71 (2019).
Wu, J.-H., Wang, S.-C. & Lin, L.-M. Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: A structural equation model. Int. J. Med. Inform. 76(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.06.006 (2007).
Dünnebeil, S., Sunyaev, A., Blohm, I., Leimeister, J. M. & Krcmar, H. Determinants of physicians’ technology acceptance for e-health in ambulatory care. Int. J. Med. Inform. 81(11), 746–760 (2012).
Bradway, M. et al. mHealth assessment: Conceptualization of a global framework. JMIR mHealth uHealth 5(5), e60 (2017).
Kim, S., Lee, K.-H., Hwang, H. & Yoo, S. Analysis of the factors influencing healthcare professionals’ adoption of mobile electronic medical record (EMR) using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in a tertiary hospital. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 30(16), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0249-8 (2016).
Gannon, B. et al. A mobile sexual health app on empowerment, education, and prevention for young adult men (MyPEEPS Mobile): Acceptability and usability evaluation. JMIR Form. Res. 4(4), e17901 (2020).
Prgomet, M., Georgiou, A. & Westbrook, J. I. The impact of mobile handheld technology on hospital physicians’ work practices and patient care: A systematic review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 16(6), 792–801. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M3215 (2009).
Acknowledgements
GM and CCH conceived the concept/design and contributed to data collection and analysis of the results. GM, CCH, GP, and MDG drafted the manuscript. All authors substantially contributed toward revising the manuscript and approved the final version. This study is part of a project funded by the Academy of Medical and Health Sciences of Catalonia and the Balearic Islands. This work was supported by the Nursing Department of Maresme and La Selva Health Corporation, the Ethics Committee of the School of Health Sciences of Tecnocampus, and the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Mataró Hospital. The authors thank all participants who participated in the study.
Funding
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by G.M., G.P. and C.C. The first draft of the manuscript was written by G.M. and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of the images in Figs. 1, Tables 1,2,3,4 and Multimedia Appendix 1.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Manzano-Monfort, G., Paluzie, G., Díaz-Gegúndez, M. et al. Usability of a mobile application for health professionals in home care services: a user-centered approach. Sci Rep 13, 2607 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29640-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29640-7
- Springer Nature Limited