A Health Literacy and Usability Heuristic Evaluation of a Mobile Consumer Health Application
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Usability and health literacy are two critical factors in the design and evaluation of consumer health information systems. However, methods for evaluating these two factors in conjunction remain limited. This study adapted a set of existing guidelines for the design of consumer health Web sites into evidence-based evaluation heuristics tailored specifically for mobile consumer health applications. In order to test the approach, a mobile consumer health application (app) was then evaluated using these heuristics. In addition to revealing ways to improve the usability of the system, this analysis identified opportunities to augment the content to make it more understandable by users with limited health literacy. This study successfully demonstrated the utility of converting existing design guidelines into heuristics for the evaluation of usability and health literacy. The heuristics generated could be applied for assessing and revising other existing consumer health information systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it