1,202
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Studying business & IT? Drive your professional career forwards with BCS books - for a 20% discount click here: shop.bcs.org

      scite_
       
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Conference Proceedings: found
      Is Open Access

      A Systematic Review of Usefulness Design Goals of Occupational mHealth Apps for Healthcare Workers.

      Published
      proceedings-article
      , , ,
      34th British HCI Conference (HCI2021)
      Post-pandemic HCI – Living Digitally
      20th - 21st July 2021
      mHealth Apps, Occupational ill-health, Usefulness, Usability, Utility, User Experience, Healthcare Workers
      Bookmark

            Abstract

            To improve healthcare professionals health and wellbeing at work, many available effective treatments including meditation, and workplace intervention, have been developed. However, the utilisation of these interventions is still limited. Currently, various mobile health applications (mHealth Apps) exist to assist a wide range of users with different occupational health issues, such as stress, anxiety, and burnout. Despite their advantages, post-download uptake of mHealth apps by end-users remains low. Some of the reasons for this are poor usability, irrelevant or missing user-desired features, and poor user experience. This review paper explores the usefulness of mHealth Apps for the early detection of occupational-related ill-health among healthcare workers. To achieve this, we developed a conceptual framework that identifies relevant usability, utility, and user experience design goals that enhance the usefulness of such mHealth apps. This paper initially presents a systematic review of the literature that identifies design goals proven to be relevant or often lacking. The review shows that occupational mHealth apps rarely fit end users’ backgrounds, work contexts, and dynamics. In turn, these identified design goals will be used as assessment points with end-users in subsequent stages of our project. Expected results at the end of the project will provide an enhanced understanding of usefulness design goals that contribute to the long-term use and adoption of these apps.

            Content

            Author and article information

            Contributors
            Conference
            July 2021
            July 2021
            : 214-219
            Affiliations
            [0001]University of West London

            St. Mary’s Road, Ealing, UK
            [0002]University of West London

            UK and ITI/Larsys, Portugal
            Article
            10.14236/ewic/HCI2021.22
            1970d01a-8858-4cb6-b046-c3797d8176cd
            © Yingta et al. Published by BCS Learning & Development Ltd. Proceedings of the BCS 34th British HCI Conference 2021, UK

            This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

            34th British HCI Conference
            HCI2021
            34
            London, UK
            20th - 21st July 2021
            Electronic Workshops in Computing (eWiC)
            Post-pandemic HCI – Living Digitally
            History
            Product

            1477-9358 BCS Learning & Development

            Self URI (article page): https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14236/ewic/HCI2021.22
            Self URI (journal page): https://ewic.bcs.org/
            Categories
            Electronic Workshops in Computing

            Applied computer science,Computer science,Security & Cryptology,Graphics & Multimedia design,General computer science,Human-computer-interaction
            mHealth Apps,Usefulness,User Experience,Usability,Utility,Healthcare Workers,Occupational ill-health

            REFERENCES

            1. and (2019) ‘Usability Issues in Mental Health Applications’, in. ACM, pp. 343–348. doi: 10.1145/3314183.3323676.

            2. and (2020) ‘Elderly users’ acceptance of mHealth user interface (UI) design-based culture: the moderator role of age’, Journal on multimodal user interfaces, 14(1), pp. 49–59. doi: 10.1007/s12193-019-00307-w.

            3. , and (2018) ‘Design for mobile mental health: an exploratory review’. Available at: http://uwl.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlVxLSwMxEB5sT16komK1ylxFWrOvNumtVBevRS97Ckl2FqS1gu3i3-8kqSie7DkhGWZI5pvHNwBZOhLDP39CQqm0jcqdTYRNnJN1qqwjQ03RMMQIuZ1SVousqnxPzf03NcYnzjdvvtw8ar9We3oVW4l81mv7UDAc6UAnE76Z6yVfBAex-uUgyh6c7JEdzqIpTuGI1mcwfgwdEsjQEN8_LD9BjNP0MRIQp2jWSKEPLpS7MVJJzkGUT6_z5yHfo6MUG-1HNP9Iqv2Scbpdai9fdgFdjuTpEjBXTghWmUwMx1VFY5yica0mQtaMA2rqw92_j706YO81HLOfD2Nc08kAutvPlm6Cqm6D2nYJdYWB.

            4. , and (2020) ‘Burnout and somatic symptoms among frontline healthcare professionals at the peak of the Italian COVID-19 pandemic’, Psychiatry research, 290, p. 113129. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113129.

            5. et al. (2014) ‘Evaluating and selecting mobile health apps: strategies for healthcare providers and healthcare organizations’, Translational Behavioral Medicine, 4(4), pp. 363–371. doi: 10.1007/s13142-014-0293-9.

            6. et al. (1997) ‘Towards viable, useful and usable human factors design guidance’, Applied ergonomics, 28(5), pp. 311–322. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(97)00012-4.

            7. , and (2019) ‘Current Knowledge and Adoption of Mobile Health Apps Among Australian General Practitioners: Survey Study’, JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7(6), pp. e13199–e13199. doi:10.2196/13199.

            8. (2018) ‘Do mental health mobile apps work: evidence and recommendations for designing high-efficacy mental health mobile apps’, mHealth, 4(Journal Article), pp. 6–6. doi:10.21037/mhealth.2018.03.02.

            9. , and (2007) ‘GeoHealth: a location-based service for nomadic home healthcare workers’, in. ACM, pp. 273–281. doi: 10.1145/1324892.1324951.

            10. et al. (2020) ‘A Pilot Evaluation of a Smartphone Application for Workplace Depression’, International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(18), p. 6753. doi:10.3390/ijerph17186753.

            11. (1989) ‘Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology’, MIS quarterly, 13(3), pp. 319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008.

            12. et al. (2015) ‘Perspectives on the evolution of mobile (mHealth) technologies and application to rehabilitation’, Physical therapy, 95(3), p. 397.

            13. , and (2013) ‘The use of personal digital assistants in clinical decision making by health care professionals: A systematic review’, Health informatics journal, 19(1), pp. 16–28. doi:10.1177/1460458212446761.

            14. et al. (2020) ‘A user-centred design framework for mHealth’, PloS one, 15(8), p. e0237910. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237910.

            15. et al. (2015) ‘mHealth Stakeholder Integration: A gamification-based Framework-approach towards behavioural change’, in. ACM, pp. 268–274. doi: 10.1145/2837126.2837153.

            16. , and (2020) ‘Supporting the well-being of healthcare workers during and after COVID-19’, Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 70. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqaa096.

            17. and (2007) ‘Factors Influencing Expectations of e-Health Services within a Direct-Effects Model of User Satisfaction’, E-service journal, 5(2), pp. 85–112. doi:10.2979/ESJ.2007.5.2.85.

            18. (2014) ‘Deriving Usability Goals for Mobile Applications’, in. ACM, pp. 1–6. doi:10.1145/2643572.2643576.

            19. et al. (2019) ‘Usability Challenges for Health and Wellness Mobile Apps: Mixed-Methods Study Among mHealth Experts and Consumers’, JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7(1), p. e12160. doi:10.2196/12160.

            20. et al. (2020) ‘Prevalence and predictors of PTSS during COVID-19 outbreak in China hardest-hit areas: Gender differences matter’, Psychiatry research, 287, p. 112921. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112921.

            21. and (2014) ‘What does it mean for a system to be useful?: an exploratory study of usefulness’, in. ACM, pp. 885–894. doi:10.1145/2598510.2598600.

            22. , and (2013) ‘A conceptual framework for designing mHealth solutions for developing countries’, in. ACM, pp. 31–36. doi: 10.1145/2491148.2491154.

            23. (1994) ‘Usability inspection methods’, in Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 413–414.

            24. , and (2007) ‘An Approach to the Evaluation of Usefulness as a Social Construct Using Technological Frames’, International journal of human-computer interaction, 22(1–2), pp. 153–172. doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc2201-02_8.

            25. et al. (2015) ‘Healthcare workers’ perceptions and experiences on using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis’, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015(11). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011942.

            26. et al. (2017) ‘Understanding initial experiences with Mindmax, an mHealth app that draws on shared interests in sports and video games’, in. ACM, pp. 438–442. doi:10.1145/3152771.3156152.

            27. and (2018) ‘Ten factors to consider when developing usability scenarios and tasks for health information technology’, Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 78, pp. 123–133. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2018.01.001.

            28. et al. (2016) ‘A user-centered model for designing consumer mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps)’, Journal of biomedical informatics, 60(Journal Article), pp. 243–251. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2016.02.002.

            29. et al. (2020) ‘Characteristics of and Factors Influencing College Nursing Students’ Willingness to Utilize mHealth for Health Promotion’, Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN, 38(5), pp. 246–255. doi:10.1097/CIN.0000000000000600.

            30. et al. (2018) ‘Clinical review of user engagement with mental health smartphone apps: evidence, theory and improvements’, Evidence-based mental health, 21(3), pp. 116–119.

            31. and (2019) ‘The Continued Use of Mobile Health Apps: Insights From a Longitudinal Study’, JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7(8), pp. e12983–e12983. doi: 10.2196/12983.

            32. (2014) ‘Mobile devices and apps for health care professionals: uses and benefits’, P&T (Lawrenceville, N.J.), 39(5), pp. 356–364.

            33. and (2012) ‘Review of health information technology usability study methodologies’, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 19(3), pp. 413–422. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000020.

            Comments

            Comment on this article