Methodological Quality of Manuscripts Reporting on the Usability of Mobile Applications for Pain Assessment and Management: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Almeida AF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7038093 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Methodological Quality of Manuscripts Reporting on the Usability of Mobile Applications for Pain Assessment and Management: A Systematic Review.
Almeida Ana F AF Rocha Nelson P NP Silva Anabela G AG
International journal of environmental research and public health 20200127 3
<h4>Background</h4>There has been increasing use of mobile mHealth applications, including pain assessment and pain self-management apps. The usability of mHealth applications has vital importance as it affects the quality of apps. Thus, usability assessment with methodological rigor is essential to minimize errors and undesirable consequences, as well as to increase user acceptance.<h4>Objective</h4>this study aimed to synthesize and evaluate existing studies on the assessment of the usability ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.
| S-EPMC7949759 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPain is the most common and distressing symptom for patients in all clinical settings. The dearth of health informatics tools to support acute and chronic pain management may be contributing to the chronic pain and opioid abuse crises. The purpose of this study is to qualitatively evaluate the content and functionality of mobile pain management apps.MethodsThe Apple App Store and the Google Play Store were searched to identify pain management apps. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) that apps include a pain diary function allowing users to record pain episodes, (2) are available in either Apple App Store or Google Play Store, and (3) are available in the English language. We excluded apps if they were limited to only specific forms of pain or specific diseases.ResultsA total of 36 apps met the inclusion criteria. Most of the apps served as pain diary tools to record the key characteristics of pain. The pain diary features of the apps were grouped into nine categories: the recordings of pain intensity, pain location, pain quality, pain's impacts on daily life, other features of pain, other related symptoms, medication, patients' habits and basic information, and other miscellaneous functions. The apps displayed various problems in use. The problem of not involving healthcare professionals in app development has not been resolved. Approximately 31% of apps including a pain diary function engaged clinicians in app development. Only 19% involved end-users in development and then only in an ad-hoc way. Only one third of the apps supported the cross-platforms, none of the apps supported clinician access to graphical pain data visualization, none secured HIPAA compliance, and none endorsed the PEG tool for primary care physicians' chronic pain management.ConclusionsMost of the 36 pain management apps demonstrated various problems including user interface and security. Many apps lacked clinician and end-user involvement in app development impacting the clinical utility of these apps. We could not find any pain apps suitable for clinical usage despite high demand from clinicians due to the US opioid crisis.
| S-EPMC6543581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelf-regulation theory suggests people learn to influence their own behavior through self-monitoring, goal-setting, feedback, self-reward, and self-instruction, all of which smartphones are now capable of facilitating. Several mobile apps exist to manage asthma; however, little evidence exists about whether these apps employ user-centered design processes that adhere to government usability guidelines for mobile apps.ObjectiveBuilding upon a previous study that documented adolescent preferences for an asthma self-management app, we employed a user-centered approach to assess the usability of a high-fidelity wireframe for an asthma self-management app intended for use by adolescents with persistent asthma.MethodsIndividual interviews were conducted with adolescents (ages 11-18 years) with persistent asthma who owned a smartphone (N=8). Adolescents were asked to evaluate a PDF app wireframe consisting of 76 screen shots displaying app features, including log in and home screen, profile setup, settings and info, self-management features, and graphical displays for charting asthma control and medication. Preferences, comments, and suggestions for each set of screen shots were assessed using the audio-recorded interviews. Two coders reached consensus on adolescent evaluations of the following aspects of app features: (1) usability, (2) behavioral intentions to use, (3) confusing aspects, and (4) suggestions for improvement.ResultsThe app wireframe was generally well received, and several suggestions for improvement were recorded. Suggestions included increased customization of charts and notifications, reminders, and alerts. Participants preferred longitudinal data about asthma control and medication use to be displayed using line graphs. All participants reported that they would find an asthma management app like the one depicted in the wireframe useful for managing their asthma.ConclusionsEarly stage usability tests guided by government usability guidelines (usability.gov) revealed areas for improvement for an asthma self-management app for adolescents. Addressing these areas will be critical to developing an engaging and effective asthma self-management app that is capable of improving adolescent asthma outcomes.
| S-EPMC5311420 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Shared decision making is crucial in the pain domain. The subjective nature of pain demands solutions that can facilitate pain assessment and management. The aim of the current study is to review the current trends in both the commercial and the research domains in order to reveal the key issues and guidelines that could further help in the effective development of pain-focused apps. We searched for scientific publications and commercial apps in 22 databases and the two major app stores. Out of 3612 articles and 336 apps, 69 met the requirements for inclusion following the PRISMA guidelines. An analysis of their features (technological approach, design methodology, evaluation strategy, and others) identified critical points that have to be taken into consideration in future efforts. For example, commercial and research efforts target different types of pain, while no participatory design is followed in the majority of the cases examined. Moreover, the evaluation of the final apps remains a challenge that hinders their success. The examined domain is expected to experience a substantial increase. More research is needed towards the development of non-intrusive wearables and sensors for pain detection and assessment, along with artificial intelligence techniques and open data.
| S-EPMC10422642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The use of health apps to support the treatment of chronic pain is gaining importance. Most available pain management apps are still lacking in content quality and quantity as their developers neither involve health experts to ensure target group suitability nor use gamification to engage and motivate the user. To close this gap, we aimed to develop a gamified pain management app, Pain-Mentor. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether medical professionals would approve of Pain-Mentor's concept and content, this study aimed to evaluate the quality of the app's first prototype with experts from the field of chronic pain management and to discover necessary improvements. METHODS:A total of 11 health professionals with a background in chronic pain treatment and 2 mobile health experts participated in this study. Each expert first received a detailed presentation of the app. Afterward, they tested Pain-Mentor and then rated its quality using the mobile application rating scale (MARS) in a semistructured interview. RESULTS:The experts found the app to be of excellent general (mean 4.54, SD 0.55) and subjective quality (mean 4.57, SD 0.43). The app-specific section was rated as good (mean 4.38, SD 0.75). Overall, the experts approved of the app's content, namely, pain and stress management techniques, behavior change techniques, and gamification. They believed that the use of gamification in Pain-Mentor positively influences the patients' motivation and engagement and thus has the potential to promote the learning of pain management techniques. Moreover, applying the MARS in a semistructured interview provided in-depth insight into the ratings and concrete suggestions for improvement. CONCLUSIONS:The experts rated Pain-Mentor to be of excellent quality. It can be concluded that experts perceived the use of gamification in this pain management app in a positive manner. This showed that combining pain management with gamification did not negatively affect the app's integrity. This study was therefore a promising first step in the development of Pain-Mentor.
| S-EPMC7284405 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Mobile health applications may improve patient education and self-care for a complex condition such as atrial fibrillation (AF). Little is known about the accessibility of mobile health applications ("apps") and their readability. We evaluated the readability and quality of available apps for AF. METHODS:We searched the Apple and Google Play app stores with the terms "atrial fibrillation" and "afib." We downloaded English-language apps (up to n?=?100 for each term) and categorized them by name, App store, cost, content, uploading agency (heath care associated [HCA] versus non-HCA), target audience (health care professional [HCP] versus non-HCP), scientific validity (i.e., citation of peer-reviewed or validated medical information), and user ratings. We analyzed the text of apps intended for a non-HCP target audience for readability with 10 established measures. RESULTS:Of the 206 downloaded apps, 50.5% were excluded as unrelated to AF, inaccessible, or non-English language. The majority of apps contained information about AF (63.2% Apple, 52.2% Google Play) and AF detection (52.6% Apple, 56.5% Google Play). A minority of non-HCP apps contained scientifically validated content (Apple, 15.8%; Google Play, 13.0%; P?=?NS). App mean readability was grade 12.1?±?2.6. CONCLUSIONS:Most AF apps lacked scientific validation and were written at excessively high reading-grade levels. Our results suggest caution with mobile health apps, particularly for users with limited health literacy. There is potential opportunity for a multi-disciplinary effort by regulatory agencies, healthcare organizations, and app stores to improve relevance, scientific validity, and readability of AF apps for patients with this complex and morbid disease.
| S-EPMC6710110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMobile applications or 'apps' intended to help people manage their health and chronic conditions are widespread and gaining in popularity. However, little is known about their acceptability and usability for low-income, racially/ethnically diverse populations who experience a disproportionate burden of chronic disease and its complications.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate the usability of existing mobile health applications ("apps") for diabetes, depression, and caregiving, in order to facilitate development and tailoring of patient-facing apps for diverse populations.DesignUsability testing, a mixed-methods approach that includes interviewing and direct observation of participant technology use, was conducted with participants (n = 9 caregivers; n = 10 patients with depression; and n = 10 patients with diabetes) on a total of 11 of the most popular health apps (four diabetes apps, four depression apps, and three caregiver apps) on both iPad and Android tablets.ParticipantsThe participants were diverse: 15 (58 %) African Americans, seven (27 %) Whites, two (8 %) Asians, two (8 %) Latinos with either diabetes, depression, or who were caregivers.Main measuresParticipants were given condition-specific tasks, such as entering a blood glucose value into a diabetes app. Participant interviews were video recorded and were coded using standard methods to evaluate attempts and completions of tasks. We performed inductive coding of participant comments to identify emergent themes.Key resultsParticipants completed 79 of 185 (43 %) tasks across 11 apps without assistance. Three themes emerged from participant comments: lack of confidence with technology, frustration with design features and navigation, and interest in having technology to support their self-management.ConclusionsApp developers should employ participatory design strategies in order to have an impact on chronic conditions such as diabetes and depression that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. While patients express interest in using technologies for self-management, current tools are not consistently usable for diverse patients.
| S-EPMC5130945 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe mobile health (mHealth) app trustworthiness (mHAT) checklist was created to identify end users' opinions on the characteristics of trustworthy mHealth apps and to communicate this information to app developers. To ensure that the checklist is suited for all relevant stakeholders, it is necessary to validate its contents.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of the mHAT checklist by modifying its contents according to ratings and suggestions from stakeholders familiar with the process of developing, managing, or curating mHealth apps.MethodsA 44-item online survey was administered to relevant stakeholders. The survey was largely comprised of the mHAT checklist items, which respondents rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5).ResultsIn total, seven professional backgrounds were represented in the survey: administrators (n=6), health professionals (n=7), information technology personnel (n=6), managers (n=2), marketing personnel (n=3), researchers (n=5), and user experience researchers (n=8). Aside from one checklist item-"the app can inform end users about errors in measurements"-the combined positive ratings (ie, completely agree and agree) of the checklist items overwhelmingly exceeded the combined negative ratings (ie, completely disagree and disagree). Meanwhile, two additional items were included in the checklist: (1) business or funding model of the app and (2) details on app uninstallation statistics.ConclusionsOur results indicate that the mHAT checklist is a valuable resource for a broad range of stakeholders to develop trustworthy mHealth apps. Future studies should examine if the checklist works best for certain mHealth apps or in specific settings.
| S-EPMC7404005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe indirect comparison of two interventions can be valuable in many situations. However, the quality of an indirect comparison will depend on several factors including the chosen methodology and validity of underlying assumptions. Published indirect comparisons are increasingly more common in the medical literature, but as yet, there are no published recommendations of how they should be reported. Our aim is to systematically review the quality of published indirect comparisons to add to existing empirical data suggesting that improvements can be made when reporting and applying indirect comparisons.Methodology/findingsReviews applying statistical methods to indirectly compare the clinical effectiveness of two interventions using randomised controlled trials were eligible. We searched (1966-2008) Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, The Cochrane library, and Medline. Full review publications were assessed for eligibility. Specific criteria to assess quality were developed and applied. Forty-three reviews were included. Adequate methodology was used to calculate the indirect comparison in 41 reviews. Nineteen reviews assessed the similarity assumption using sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, or meta-regression. Eleven reviews compared trial-level characteristics. Twenty-four reviews assessed statistical homogeneity. Twelve reviews investigated causes of heterogeneity. Seventeen reviews included direct and indirect evidence for the same comparison; six reviews assessed consistency. One review combined both evidence types. Twenty-five reviews urged caution in interpretation of results, and 24 reviews indicated when results were from indirect evidence by stating this term with the result.ConclusionsThis review shows that the underlying assumptions are not routinely explored or reported when undertaking indirect comparisons. We recommend, therefore, that the quality of indirect comparisons should be improved, in particular, by assessing assumptions and reporting the assessment methods applied. We propose that the quality criteria applied in this article may provide a basis to help review authors carry out indirect comparisons and to aid appropriate interpretation.
| S-EPMC2978085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Smartphone applications (apps) are recent innovations that have not been studied extensively. The lack of regulatory body assessing the content of existing apps means that their quality is often unknown. This review aims to assess the quality of smartphone apps that claim to provide information and treatment for pain conditions. It assesses the degree to which apps adhere to evidence-based practices in psychological research for pain management and which stand the best chance of being effective for consumers. Another aim is to identify potential apps health-care professionals may wish to recommend to clients. Pain management apps on the official iPhone and Android stores were searched in January 2014. Those containing a psychological component in the app description were downloaded and rated for quality using a checklist devised by two researchers. The checklist was based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) guidelines since the latter is the most effective intervention for computerized programs. A total of 195 apps met inclusion criteria. Although CBT is a promising alternative to traditional psychological interventions, only six apps endorsed theoretical reference to CBT principles. Existing apps are often constructed by lay people or software developers, with little input from health-care professionals. Pain apps sometimes promise a solution to pain without a consideration of app content. The development of evidence-based apps and rigorous evaluation of any long-term outcomes are important in enhancing understanding of the potential of these apps.
| S-EPMC4994774 | biostudies-literature