Evidence-based Heuristics for Evaluating Demands on eHealth Literacy and Usability in 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
Heuristic evaluations have proven to be valuable for identifying usability issues in systems. Commonly used sets of heuritics exist; however, they may not always be the most suitable, given the specific goal of the analysis. One such example is seeking to evaluate the demands on eHealth literacy and usability of consumer health information systems. In this study, eight essential heuristics and three optional heuristics subsumed from the evidence on eHealth/health literacy and usability were tested for their utility in assessing a mobile blood pressure tracking application (app). This evaluation revealed a variety of ways the design of the app could both benefit and impede users with limited eHealth literacy. This study demonstrated the utility of a low-cost, single evaluation approach for identifying both eHealth literacy and usability issues based on existing evidence in the literature.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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