A User-Centered Design Approach for a Screening App for People With Cognitive Impairment (digiDEM-SCREEN): Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dementia is a widespread syndrome that currently affects more than 55 million people worldwide. Digital screening instruments are one way to increase diagnosis rates. Developing an app for older adults presents several challenges, both technical and social. In order to make the app user-friendly, feedback from potential future end users is crucial during this development process. Objective: This study aimed to establish a user-centered design process for the development of digiDEM-SCREEN, a user-friendly app to support early identification of persons with slight symptoms of dementia. Methods: This research used qualitative and quantitative methods and involved 3 key stakeholder groups: the digiDEM research team, the software development team, and the target user group (older adults ≥65 years with and without cognitive impairments). The development of the screening app was based on an already existing and scientifically analyzed screening test (Self-Administered Tasks Uncovering Risk of Neurodegeneration; SATURN). An initial prototype was developed based on the recommendations for mobile health apps and the teams' experiences. The prototype was tested in several iterations by various end users and continuously improved. The app's usability was evaluated using the System Usability Scale (SUS), and verbal feedback by the end users was obtained using the think-aloud method. Results: The translation process during test development took linguistic and cultural aspects into account. The texts were also adapted to the German-speaking context. Additional instructions were developed and supplemented. The test was administered using different randomization options to minimize learning effects. digiDEM-SCREEN was developed as a tablet and smartphone app. In the first focus group discussion, the developers identified and corrected the most significant criticism in the next version. Based on the iterative improvement process, only minor issues needed to be addressed after the final focus group discussion. The SUS score increased with each version (score of 72.5 for V1 vs 82.4 for V2), while the verbal feedback from end users also improved. Conclusions: The development of digiDEM-SCREEN serves as an excellent example of the importance of involving experts and potential end users in the design and development process of health apps. Close collaboration with end users leads to products that not only meet current standards but also address the actual needs and expectations of users. This is also a crucial step toward promoting broader adoption of such digital tools. This research highlights the significance of a user-centered design approach, allowing content, text, and design to be optimally tailored to the needs of the target audience. From these findings, it can be concluded that future projects in the field of health apps would also benefit from a similar approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".