The project demonstrates that enterprise-wide single sign-on systems should be used in healthcare to reduce complexity like "password hell", improve usability and user navigation. We plan to extend this to work with other systems used in the health care enterprise.

Background Recent evidence in mobile health has demonstrated that, in some cases, apps are an effective way to improve health care delivery. Health care interventions delivered via mobile technology have demonstrated both practicality and affordability. Lately, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions delivered over the internet have also shown a meaningful impact on patients with anxiety and depression. Objective Given the growing proliferation of smartphones and the trust in apps to support improved health behaviors and outcomes, we were interested in comparing a mobile app with Web-based methods for the delivery of CBT. This study aimed to compare the usability of a CBT mobile app called MoodTrainer with an evidence-based website called MoodGYM. Methods We used convenience sampling to recruit 30 students from a large Midwestern university and randomly assigned them to either MoodGYM or MoodTrainer user group. The trial period ran for 2 weeks, after which the students completed a self-assessment survey based on Nielsen heuristics. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the survey results from the 2 groups. We also compared the number of modules attempted or completed and the time spent on CBT strategies. Results The results indicate that the MoodTrainer app received a higher usability score when compared with MoodGYM. Overall, 87% (13/15) of the participants felt that it was easy to navigate through the MoodTrainer app compared with 80% (12/15) of the MoodGYM participants. All MoodTrainer participants agreed that the app was easy to use and did not require any external assistance, whereas only 67% (10/15) had the same opinion for MoodGYM. Furthermore, 67% (10/15) of the MoodTrainer participants found that the navigation controls were easy to locate compared with 80% (12/15) of the MoodGYM participants. MoodTrainer users, on an average, completed 2.5 modules compared with 1 module completed by MoodGYM users. Conclusions As among the first studies to directly compare the usability of a mobile app–based CBT with smartphone-specific features against a Web-based CBT, there is an opportunity for app-based CBT as at least in our limited trial, it was more usable and engaging. The study was limited to evaluate usability only and not the clinical effectiveness of the app.

Abstract. Mobile technology is a cost effective and scalable platform for developing a therapeutic intervention. This paper discusses the development of a mobile application for people suffering with depression and anxiety. The application which we have developed is similar to a Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) website, which is freely available on the internet. Past research has shown that CBT delivered over the internet is effective in alleviating the depressive symptoms in users. But, this delivery method is associated with some innate drawbacks, which caused user dropout and reduced adherence to the therapy. To overcome these shortfalls, from web based CBT delivery, a mobile application called MoodTrainer was developed. The application is equipped with mobile specific interventions and CBT modules which aim at delivering a dynamic supportive psychotherapy to the user. The mobile specific interventions using this application ensures that the user is constantly engaged with the application and focused to change the negative thought process. We present MoodTrainer as a self-efficacy tool and virtual CBT that is not meant to replace a clinical caregiver. Rather, it is a supportive tool that can be used to self-monitor, as well as a monitoring aid for clinicians.

BACKGROUND Recent evidence in mobile health has demonstrated that, in some cases, apps are an effective way to improve health care delivery. Health care interventions delivered via mobile technology have demonstrated both practicality and affordability. Lately, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions delivered over the internet have also shown a meaningful impact on patients with anxiety and depression. OBJECTIVE Given the growing proliferation of smartphones and the trust in apps to support improved health behaviors and outcomes, we were interested in comparing a mobile app with Web-based methods for the delivery of CBT. This study aimed to compare the usability of a CBT mobile app called MoodTrainer with an evidence-based website called MoodGYM. METHODS We used convenience sampling to recruit 30 students from a large Midwestern university and randomly assigned them to either the MoodGYM or MoodTrainer user group. The trial period ran for 2 weeks, after which the students completed a self-assessment survey based on Nielsen heuristics. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the survey results from the 2 groups. We also compared the number of modules attempted or completed and the time spent on CBT strategies. RESULTS The results indicate that the MoodTrainer app received a higher usability score when compared with MoodGYM. Overall, 87% (13/15) of the participants felt that it was easy to navigate through the MoodTrainer app compared with 80% (12/15) of the MoodGYM participants. All MoodTrainer participants agreed that the app was easy to use and did not require any external assistance, whereas only 67% (10/15) had the same opinion for MoodGYM. Furthermore, 67% (10/15) of the MoodTrainer participants found that the navigation controls were easy to locate compared with 80% (12/15) of the MoodGYM participants. MoodTrainer users, on average, completed 2.5 modules compared with 1 module completed by MoodGYM users. CONCLUSIONS As among the first studies to directly compare the usability of a mobile app–based CBT with smartphone-specific features against a Web-based CBT, there is an opportunity for app-based CBT as, at least in our limited trial, it was more usable and engaging. The study was limited to evaluate usability only and not the clinical effectiveness of the app.