Usability and User Experience Testing of a Co-Designed Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes App (“MyPal for Adults”) for Palliative Cancer Care: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mobile health technologies have the potential to enhance the management, communication, and overall quality of life of patients with cancer. The MyPal project, using a participatory design approach, aims to provide palliative care support for patients with cancer through an electronic patient-reported outcomes eHealth platform. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the usability and user experience of "MyPal for adults," a co-designed palliative care mobile app designed to support adults with cancer. Methods: Representative users participated in a 4-step usability study using a "think-aloud" protocol, complemented with feature satisfaction, difficulty perceived, and design impression surveys along with a short, structured interview. Participants were also asked to provide quantitative feedback via the postuse System Usability Scale, User Experience Questionnaire, and Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire. The data were analyzed along the lines of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9241-210 framework. Results: All participants found the intervention content useful, and they reported satisfactory usability, with a mean Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire score of 2.458 (SD 1.08) and a System Usability Scale score of 68.9. All aspects of the User Experience Questionnaire (attractiveness, perspicuity, efficiency, dependability, stimulation, and novelty) surpassed usability quality benchmarks. The qualitative analysis identified 43 usability issues, primarily related to effectiveness and efficiency as defined in ISO 9241-210. Conclusions: In this study, we conducted a usability evaluation of the "MyPal for adults" app, a digital tool designed to enhance the palliative care experience. This approach identifies real-world usability issues, enabling iterative improvements in the eHealth platform's design. Our findings reveal a user-friendly interface and positive patient experiences. This study emphasizes the need to enhance mobile health platform usability, offering insights to improve digital palliative care.
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 | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".