Evaluating mHealth Apps Using Affordances: Case of CommCare Versus DHIS2 Tracker

  • Amrit Chhetri
  • Mari Iversen
  • Jens KaasbøllEmail author
  • Chipo Kanjo
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 551)


CommCare and DHIS2 Tracker are two software packages which were configured for community health workers (CHW) in Malawi and evaluated and compared. To capture a wide scope of aspects including possible developmental ones, the Affordance concept was applied as an analytic frame. Being configurable software packages, concept of Platform Affordance was considered but abandoned, since its domain could be covered by the configurer’s affordance. To operationalize the concept, usability concepts from HCI were applied for the evaluation and comparison of end-user and configure affordances. Organisational Affordance, based on structuration theory modalities, was used to characterize affordances not attributed to specific people.

The study revealed that much as CommCare is more specific to CHWs, hence having more weight on the configuration (where configuration was quicker) and end-user affordances (with an ability to display images which could be used for health promotion) compared to DHIS2, it had weak organisational affordance mostly due to license fees. Further, DHIS2 had the ability to produce reports summarizing health indicators and comparing the data generated with data collected outside the DHIS2 App.

In addition to usability issues, the CHWs perceived that any of the systems would relieve them from bulky registers to carry and time-consuming reporting, hence affording more time for other tasks. Observations of their slow typing speed point in the opposite direction. While the Affordance concept emphasizes the relationship between users and technology, the case points to the need for not making users’ first impression the only basis for judging affordances.


Affordances Usability mHealth app CommCare DHIS2 tracker 


  1. 1.
    Thapa, D., Sein, M.K.: Trajectory of affordances: insights from a case of telemedicine in Nepal. Inf. Syst. J. 28(5), 796–817 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vyas, D., Chisalita, C.M., Dix, A.: Organizational affordances: a structuration theory approach to affordances. Interact. Comput. 29(2), 117–131 (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    dimagi (2018). Accessed 2018
  4. 4.
    Health Information Privacy (2018). Accessed 2018
  5. 5.
    Chang, L.W., et al.: Perceptions and acceptability of mHealth interventions for improving patient care at a community-based HIV/AIDS clinic in Uganda: a mixed methods study. AIDS Care 25(7), 874–880 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thondoo, M., et al.: Potential roles of mHealth for community health workers: formative research with end users in Uganda and Mozambique. JMIR mHealth uHealth 3(3), e76 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gibson, J.J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1979)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norman, D.A.: The Psychology of Everyday Things. (The Design of Everyday Things). Basic Books, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norman, D.A.: Affordance, Conventions, and Design. Interactions 6(3), 38–43 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leonardi, P.M.: When does technology use enable network change in organizations? A comparative study of feature use and shared affordances (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pozzi, G., Pigni, F., Vitari, C.: Affordance theory in the IS discipline: a review and synthesis of the literature. In: AMCIS 2014 Proceedings (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO 9241: ergonomics of human-system interaction. In: Usability: Definitions and Concepts (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley, Hoboken (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koskinen, K., Bonina, C., Eaton, B.: Digital platforms in the global south: foundations and research agenda. In: Development Implications of Digital Economies. Centre for Development Informatics, University of Manchester (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giddens, A.: Agency, structure. In: Giddens, A. (ed.) Central Problems in Social Theory. Contemporary Social Theory, pp. 49–95. Palgrave, London (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 25010 Software Product Quality (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Non-functional requirement. In: Wikipedia (2018)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gaver, W.W.: Technology affordances. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGrenere, J., Ho, W.: Affordances: clarifying and evolving a concept. In: Graphics Interface (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.University of MalawiZombaMalawi

Personalised recommendations