Advertisement

A Guidance and Evaluation Approach for mHealth Education Applications

  • Tareq AljaberEmail author
  • Neil Gordon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10296)

Abstract

A growing number of mobile applications for health education are being utilized to support different stakeholders, from health professionals to software developers to patients and more general users. There is a lack of a critical evaluation framework to ensure the usability and reliability of these mobile health education applications (MHEAs). Such a framework would facilitate the saving of time and effort for the different user groups. This paper describes a framework for evaluating mobile applications for health education, including a guidance tool to help different stakeholders select the one most suitable for them. The framework is intended to meet the needs and requirements of the different user categories, as well as improving the development of MHEAs through software engineering approaches. A description of the evaluation framework is provided, with its efficient hybrid of selected heuristic evaluation (HE) and usability evaluation (UE) factors. Lastly, an account of the quantitative and qualitative results for the framework applied to the Medscape and other mobile apps is given. This proposed framework – an Evaluation Framework for Mobile Health Education Apps – consists of a hybrid of five metrics selected from a larger set during heuristic and usability evaluation, the choice being based on interviews with patients, software developers and health professionals.

Keywords

Heuristic evaluation Usability evaluation Evaluation framework Stakeholders Metrics 

References

  1. 1.
    Harrison, R., Flood, D., Duce, D.: Usability of mobile applications: literature review and rationale for a new usability model. J. Interact. Sci. 1, 1–16 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aljaber, T., Gordon, N., Kambhampati, C., Brayshaw, M.: An evaluation framework for mobile health education software. In: 2015 Science and Information Conference (SAI), pp. 786–790. IEEE, London (2015). doi: 10.1109/SAI.2015.7237233
  3. 3.
    Aljaber, T., Gordon, N.A.: Evaluation of mobile health education applications for health professionals and patients. In: 8th International Conference on e-Health (EH 2016), pp. 107–114. IDIAS, Funchal (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Qiang, C.Z., Yamamichi, M., Hausman, V., Altman, D.: Mobile Applications for the Health Sector. Technical report (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shareef, A.F.: Special issue on ‘innovation in distance learning technologies in developing countries’. J. Learn. Technol. Newsl. 8, 1–27 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glanz, K., Rimer Barbara, K., Viswanath, K.: Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. Jossey-Bass Wiley, San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Istepanian’, R.S.H., Lacal’, J.C.: Emerging mobile communication technologies for health: some imperative notes on m-health. In: 25th Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS, pp. 1414–1416. IEEE, Cancun (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silva, B.M.C., Rodrigues, J.J.P.C., Lopes, I.M.C., Machado, T.M.F., Zhou, L.: A novel cooperation strategy for mobile health applications. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 31, 28–36 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Healthcare Applications: App Development: An NHS Guide for Developing Mobile NHS Innovations South East. Technical report (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordon, N., Brayshaw, M., Aljaber, T.: Heuristic evaluation for serious immersive games and m-instruction. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) LCT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9753, pp. 310–319. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39483-1_29 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brayshaw, M., Gordon, N., Nganji, J., Wen, L., Butterfield, A.: Investigating heuristic evaluation as a methodology for evaluating pedagogical software: an analysis employing three case studies. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) LCT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8523, pp. 25–35. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07482-5_3 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zemliansky, P., St. Amant, K.: Handbook of Research on User Interface Design and Evaluation for Mobile Technology. Information Science Reference, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hernandez Munoz, L.U., Woolley, S.I.: A user-centered mobile health device to manage life-threatening anaphylactic allergies and provide support in allergic reactions. In: 9th International Conference on Information Technology and Applications in Biomedicine (ITAB), pp. 1–4. IEEE, Larnaca (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    John, T.: Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training. Technical report, Edmonton (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ally, M.: Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training. Technical report, Edmonton (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lobo, D., Kaskaloglu, K., Kim, C., Herbert, S.: Web usability guidelines for smartphones: a synergic approach. Int. J. Inf. Electron. Eng. 1, 33–37 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leonardi, C., Albertini, A., Pianesi, F., Zancanaro, M.: An exploratory study of a touch-based gestural interface for elderly. In: 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Extending Boundaries (NordiCHI 2010), pp. 845–850. ACM Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heggestuen, J.: One in Every 5 People in the World Own a Smartphone, One in Every 17 Own a Tablet. http://www.businessinsider.com/smartphone-and-tablet-penetration-2013-10?IR=T
  19. 19.
    CISCO: Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update 2014–2019 White Paper. https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/content/cisco-visual-networking-index-global-mobile-data-traffic-forecast-update-2014-2019-white
  20. 20.
    Alva, M.E.O., Martínez P., A.B., Cueva L., J.M., Hernán Sagástegui Ch, T., López P., B.: Comparison of methods and existing tools for the measurement of usability in the web. In: Lovelle, J.M.C., Rodríguez, B.M.G., Gayo, J.E.L., Puerto Paule Ruiz, M., Aguilar, L.J. (eds.) ICWE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2722, pp. 386–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45068-8_70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ivory, M.Y., Hearst, M.A.: The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces. J. ACM Comput. Surv. 33, 470–516 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baharuddin, R., Singh, D., Razali, R.: Usability dimensions for mobile applications-a review. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 5, 2225–2231 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coursaris, C.K., Kim, D.J.: A meta-analytical review of empirical mobile usability studies. J. Usability Stud. 6, 117–171 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith, A.: Smartphone Ownership – 2013 Update. Technical report, Washington (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    research2guidance 2014: mHealth App Developer Economics 2014. Technical report, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kumar Dubey, S., Rana, A.: Analytical comparison of usability measurement method. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 39, 11–18 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    research2guidance 2016: mHealth App Developer Economics 2016. Technical report, Berlin (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of HullHullUK

Personalised recommendations