356 Usability, acceptability, and future opportunities of mobile health (mHealth) apps for caregiver health decision making: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives/Goals: This study aims to evaluate common features of mobile health (mHealth) apps and their role in helping caregivers make health decisions for children. Methods/Study Population: A scoping review of literature on caregivers’ use of mHealth apps (published since 2008) was conducted across 5 databases (i.e., Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, and IEEE Xplore). Selected papers were categorized based on app purposes, target users, and mHealth agile development phases. Common features were also identified and analyzed along with users’ pros and cons. Further, primary feature requests were summarized to inform future development. Results/Anticipated Results: This review included 62 studies. Most apps were about maternity and infant care and specific diseases. Major users were caregivers and pregnant women. Around 20% of papers covered multiple phases in the mHealth agile development lifecycle. The effectiveness/clinical trial (phase III) was the most common. E-learning, personalization and customization, and health tracking features were the three most common features of mHealth apps included in this review. More positive feedback was found regarding features than concerns. Caregivers perceived apps as helpful and empowered them to make informed decisions. Concerns were mainly over 1) technical issues, 2) inappropriate design, and 3) ambiguous terms. Requested new features included content comprehensiveness, user engagement, and usage flexibility. Discussion/Significance of Impact: To our knowledge, this is the first review to investigate the usability of mHealth app features in this area. The results offer feasible strategies for developers to improve the effectiveness of apps for caregiver decision-making.
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 | 0.027 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".