MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387764418 · doi:10.2196/47374

Design, Development, and Evaluation of an mHealth App for Reporting of Side Effects During Cytostatic Treatment: Usability Test and Interview Study

2023· article· en· W4387764418 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emil Aale Hægermark, Nina Kongshaug, Sunil Xavier Raj, Eva Hofsli, Arild Faxvaag

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSt. Olavs Hospital Universitetssykehuset i Trondheim
KeywordsUsabilitymHealthPsychological interventionSession (web analytics)Test (biology)System usability scaleUser experience designTask (project management)Applied psychologyComputer sciencePsychologyMedicineHeuristic evaluationInternet privacyWorld Wide WebNursingHuman–computer interactionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Using mobile health (mHealth) interventions such as smartphone apps to deliver health services is an opportunity to engage patients more actively in their own treatment. Usability tests allow for the evaluation of a service by testing it out on the relevant users before implementation in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to design, develop, and evaluate the user interface of an app that would aid patients with cancer in reporting a more comprehensive summary of their side effects. METHODS: The usability test was conducted by exposing patients with cancer to a prototype of an mHealth app that allowed for reporting of side effects from a chemotherapy regimen. After solving a set of 13 tasks, the test participants completed a system usability scale questionnaire and were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide. The interviews were later transcribed and analyzed. RESULTS: The 10 test participants had a mean age of 56.5 (SD 7.11) years. The mean total task completion time for the task-solving session was 240.15 (SD 166.78) seconds. The calculated system usability scale score was 92.5. Most participants solved most of the tasks without any major issues. A minority reported having difficulties using apps on smartphones in general. One patient never achieved a meaningful interaction with our app prototype. Most of those who engaged with the app approved of features that calmed them down, made them more empowered, and put them in control. They preferred to report on side effects in a detailed and concise manner. App features that provided specific advice could provoke both fear and rational action. CONCLUSIONS: The user tests uncovered design flaws that allowed for subsequent refining of an app that has the potential to enhance the safety of patients undergoing home-based chemotherapy. However, a refined version of the app is unlikely to be of value to all patients. Some might not be able to use apps on smartphones in general, or their ability to use apps is impaired because of their disease. This finding should have implications for health care providers' overall design of their follow-up service as the service must allow for all the patients to receive safe treatment whether they can use an mHealth app or not.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.425
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→