Developing and pilot testing M-health care application for pregnant and toddlers based on user experience

Lestantri, Inda D; Putrima,; Sabiq, Ahmad; Suherlan, Elan

doi:10.1088/1742-6596/978/1/012067

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All 31 studies included infrastructure-related discussion, which is the first item in the checklist. This criterion provides information about the minimum infrastructure required for each mHealth intervention and, thus, facilitates understanding of the viability, generalizability, and replicability of the mHealth 43 Afroze et al 44 Han et al 37 Islam et al 29 Lwin et al 45 Musyimi et al 46 Soto-Perez-De-Celis et al 32 Rishikesh 33 Bull et al 30 Lestantri et al 47 Guo et al 31 Borsari et al 48 Alnasser et al 49 Praveen et al 36 Ilozumba et al 38 Malik et al 50 Mishori et al 51 Li et al 52 Ginsburg et al 25 Lopez et al 26 Miah et al 53 Sobrinho et al 54 Wang et al 55 Bernardes-Souza et al 39 interventions. In regard to the second item in the checklist, technology platform, all 31 studies once again cover discussion regarding this criterion without which it is not possible to identify the constraints that might exist and inhibit the implementation and replicability of a mHealth program.…”

Section: Findings On the Essential Mhealth Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile health interventions in developing countries: A systematic review

Hoque¹,

Rahman

Nipa

et al. 2020

Health Informatics J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reviews the quality of evidence reported in mobile health intervention literature in the context of developing countries. A systematic search of renowned databases was conducted to find studies related to mobile health applications published between a period of 2013 and 2018. After a methodological screening, a total of 31 studies were included for data extraction and synthesis. The mobile health Evidence Reporting and Assessment checklist developed by the World Health Organization was then used to evaluate the rigor and completeness in evidence reporting. We report several important and interesting findings. First, there is a very low level of familiarity with the mobile health Evidence Reporting and Assessment checklist among the researchers and mobile health intervention designers from developing countries. Second, most studies do not adequately meet the essential criteria of evidence reporting mentioned in the mobile health Evidence Reporting and Assessment checklist. Third, there is a dearth of application of design science–based methods and theory-based frameworks in developing mobile health interventions. Fourth, most of the mobile health interventions are not ready for interoperability and to be integrated into the existing health information systems. Based on these findings, we recommend for robust and inclusive study plans to deliver highly evidence-based reports by mobile health intervention studies that are conducted in the context of developing countries.

show abstract

Section: Findings On the Essential Mhealth Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile health interventions in developing countries: A systematic review

Hoque¹,

Rahman

Nipa

et al. 2020

Health Informatics J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The USE questionnaire has previously been used in the healthcare settings to evaluate user experience of ventilators, 15 radiologists, 29 and M-health care providers. 30 Higher USE scores correspond with better user experience.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Usability testing of radiotherapy systems as a medical device evaluation tool to inform hospital procurement decision-making

Jiang

Xiao

et al. 2021

Science Progress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Poor usability designs of radiotherapy systems can contribute to use errors and adverse events. Therefore, we evaluated the usability of two radiotherapy systems through radiation therapists’ performance, workload, and experience that can inform hospital procurement decision-making about the selection of appropriate radiotherapy system for radiation therapist use. Methods: We performed a comparative usability study for two radiotherapy systems through user testing. Thirty radiation therapists participated in our study, in which four typical operational tasks were performed in two tested radiotherapy systems. User performance was measured by task completion time and completion difficulty level. User workloads were measured by perceived and physiological workload using NASA-TLX questionnaires and eye motion data. User experience was measured by the USE questionnaire. Results: Significantly less task completion time and an easier task completion difficulty level were shown with the Varian Trilogy than with the XHA600E. The study results suggest that higher perceived and physiological workloads were experienced with the XHA600E than with the Varian Trilogy. Radiation therapists reported better user experience with the Varian Trilogy than with the XHA600E. Five paired t-tests regarding user performance, user workload, and user experience between the Varian Trilogy and the XHA600E were performed, showing that the Varian Trilogy radiotherapy system has a better usability design than the XHA600E radiotherapy system. Conclusions: Based on study results, we confirmed that the Varian Trilogy radiotherapy system has a better usability design than the XHA600E radiotherapy system. Furthermore, the study results provide valuable evidence for hospital procurement decision-making regarding the selection of a suitable radiotherapy system for radiation therapists to use.

show abstract

“…The USE questionnaire contains 30 questions, and each question was evaluated by a Likert-type scale from 1 to 7 (from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, respectively). The USE Questionnaire has been used in various studies to evaluate user’s perceived usability, such as in the evaluation of the software developed for radiologists [29], mobile application [30], and M-health care application [31]. Therefore, it enabled us to measure the participants’ user experience.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive Evaluation of User Interface for Ventilators Based on Respiratory Therapists’ Performance, Workload, and User Experience

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPoor ergonomic design of ventilators can result in human errors. In this study, we evaluated the ergonomics of ventilators through respiratory therapists’ performance, workload, and user experience.Material/MethodsSixteen respiratory therapists were recruited to this usability study of 3 ventilators. Participants had to perform 7 tasks on each ventilator. Respiratory therapists’ performance was measured by task errors of all tasks for each participant. Workload was measured by objective measurement (blink rate and duration) and by subjective measurement (NASA-TLX). User experience was assessed by the USE Questionnaire.ResultsFor task errors, significant differences were found among ventilators (p<0.05) and the Evital 4 received higher task errors when compared to the Servo I (p<0.05). For blink rate, significant differences were found in tasks of starting the ventilator, ventilator monitoring values recognition, ventilator setting parameters modification, alarm parameter recognition, and resetting among ventilators (p<0.05). Furthermore, blink duration was also found to be significant differently in tasks of starting the ventilator, mode and setting parameters recognition, ventilator monitoring values recognition, ventilator mode modification, and alarm parameter recognition and resetting, as well as in the average of all tasks (p<0.05). For perceived workload, the Evital 4 received higher NASA-TLX scores among ventilators. For user experience, the Servo I received the highest scores on the USE Questionnaire among the ventilators.ConclusionsThe study provides a comprehensive evaluation method of user interface based on respiratory therapists’ performance, workload, and user experience. In addition, this study suggests that the ergonomic design of the Evital 4 is poor. Finally, we found that eye motion (blink rate and duration) may be useful to assess the ergonomics of a user interface.

show abstract

Developing and pilot testing M-health care application for pregnant and toddlers based on user experience

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Mobile health interventions in developing countries: A systematic review

Mobile health interventions in developing countries: A systematic review

Usability testing of radiotherapy systems as a medical device evaluation tool to inform hospital procurement decision-making

Comprehensive Evaluation of User Interface for Ventilators Based on Respiratory Therapists’ Performance, Workload, and User Experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About