A scoping review assessing the usability of digital health technologies targeting people with multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital health technologies (DHTs) have become progressively more integrated into the healthcare of people with multiple sclerosis (MS). To ensure that DHTs meet end-users' needs, it is essential to assess their usability. The objective of this study was to determine how DHTs targeting people with MS incorporate usability characteristics into their design and/or evaluation. We conducted a scoping review of DHT studies in MS published from 2010 to the present using PubMed, Web of Science, OVID Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and medRxiv. Covidence was used to facilitate the review. We included articles that focused on people with MS and/or their caregivers, studied DHTs (including mhealth, telehealth, and wearables), and employed quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods designs. Thirty-two studies that assessed usability were included, which represents a minority of studies (26%) that assessed DHTs in MS. The most common DHT was mobile applications (n = 23, 70%). Overall, studies were highly heterogeneous with respect to what usability principles were considered and how usability was assessed. These findings suggest that there is a major gap in the application of standardized usability assessments to DHTs in MS. Improvements in the standardization of usability assessments will have implications for the future of digital health care for people with MS.
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 | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".