MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394837481 · doi:10.2196/51518

Assessing Differences in mHealth Usability and App Experiences Among Young African American Women: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4394837481 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Claudia A Opper, Felicia A. Browne, Brittni N. Howard, William A. Zule, Wendee M. Wechsberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsmHealthUsabilityMedicinePublic healthRandomized controlled trialDemographyGerontologyPsychological interventionPsychologyClinical psychologyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In North Carolina, HIV continues to disproportionately affect young African American women. Although mobile health (mHealth) technology appears to be a tool capable of making public health information more accessible for key populations, previous technology use and social determinants may impact users' mHealth experiences. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate mHealth usability, assessing differences based on previous technology use and social determinants among a sample of African American women in emerging adulthood. METHODS: As part of a National Institute on Drug Abuse-funded randomized controlled trial with African American women (aged 18-25 years), counties were assigned to receive an evidence-based HIV risk reduction intervention through mHealth and participants were asked to complete usability surveys at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Participants' first survey responses were analyzed through 2-tailed t tests and linear regression models to examine associations with previous technology use and social determinants (P<.05). RESULTS: The mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score was 69.2 (SD 17.9; n=159), which was higher than the threshold of acceptability (68.0). Participants who had previously used a tablet indicated higher usability compared to participants without previous use (mean 72.9, SD 18.1 vs mean 57.6, SD 11.4; P<.001), and participants with previous smartphone use also reported higher usability compared to participants without previous use (mean 71.9, SD 18.3 vs mean 58.0, SD 10.7; P<.001). Differences in SUS scores were observed among those reporting homelessness (mean 58.3, SD 19.0 vs mean 70.8, SD 17.2; P=.01), unemployment (mean 65.9, SD 17.2 vs mean 71.6, SD 18.1; P=.04), or current school enrollment (mean 73.2, SD 18.5 vs mean 65.4, SD 16.5; P=.006). Statistically significant associations were not observed for food insecurity (mean 67.3, SD 18.6 vs mean 69.9, SD 17.7; P=.45). CONCLUSIONS: Although above-average usability was observed overall, these findings demonstrate differences in mHealth usability based on past and current life experiences. As mHealth interventions become more prevalent, these findings may have important implications for ensuring that mHealth apps improve the reach of evidence-based interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02965014; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02965014. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12889-018-5796-8.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.391 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207