Refinement and Usability Analysis of an eHealth App for Ankylosing Spondylitis as a Complementary Treatment to Physical Therapy: Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile eHealth apps have been used as a complementary treatment to increase the quality of life of patients and provide new opportunities for the management of rheumatic diseases. Telemedicine, particularly in the areas of prevention, diagnostics, and therapy, has become an essential cornerstone in the care of patients with rheumatic diseases. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to improve the design and technology of YogiTherapy and evaluate its usability and quality. METHODS: We newly implemented the mobile eHealth app YogiTherapy with a modern design, the option to change language, and easy navigation to improve the app's usability and quality for patients. After refinement, we evaluated the app by conducting a study with 16 patients with AS (4 female and 12 male; mean age 48.1, SD 16.8 y). We assessed the usability of YogiTherapy with a task performance test (TPT) with a think-aloud protocol and the quality with the German version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). RESULTS: In the TPT, the participants had to solve 6 tasks that should be performed on the app. The overall task completion rate in the TPT was high (84/96, 88% completed tasks). Filtering for videos and navigating to perform an assessment test caused the largest issues during the TPT, while registering in the app and watching a yoga video were highly intuitive. Additionally, 12 (75%) of the 16 participants completed the German version of MARS. The quality of YogiTherapy was rated with an average MARS score of 3.79 (SD 0.51) from a maximum score of 5. Furthermore, results from the MARS questionnaire demonstrated a positive evaluation regarding functionality and aesthetics. CONCLUSIONS: The refined and tested YogiTherapy app showed promising results among most participants. In the future, the app could serve its function as a complementary treatment for patients with AS. For this purpose, surveys with a larger number of patients should still be conducted. As a substantial advancement, we made the app free and openly available on the iOS App and Google Play stores.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".