Assessment of the Health IT Usability Evaluation Model (Health-ITUEM) for evaluating mobile health (mHealth) technology

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Volumn 46, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1080-1087

  Brown, William ^a,b   Yen, Po Yin ^c   Rojas, Marlene ^b   Schnall, Rebecca ^b  

^a NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Evaluation framework; Health ITUEM; Mobile health; Usability

Indexed keywords

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK; HEALTH INFORMATIONS; HEALTH-ITUEM; MOBILE HEALTH; MOBILE HEALTH (M-HEALTH); MOBILE TECHNOLOGY; USABILITY; USABILITY EVALUATION;

INFORMATION SCIENCE; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; MOBILE DEVICES; USABILITY ENGINEERING;

HEALTH;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CODING; COMPETENCE; COMPUTER INTERFACE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH IT USABILITY EVALUATION MODEL; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MEDICAL ERROR; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MOBILE HEALTH TECHNOLOGY; MOBILE PHONE; NORMAL HUMAN; PREVENTION STUDY; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VELOCITY; WORK ENVIRONMENT;

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK; HEALTH-ITUEM; MOBILE HEALTH; USABILITY;

EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; INFORMATION SERVICES; TELEMEDICINE;

EID: 84888197978     PISSN: 15320464     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Patrick K., Griswold W.G., Raab F., Intille S.S. Health and the mobile phone. Am J Prev Med 2008, 35(2):177-181.
2. Dolan B. Report: 13K iPhone consumer health apps in 2012; 2011. [cited 03.18.13]. http://mobihealthnews.com/13368/report-13k-iphone-consumer-health-apps-in-2012.
3. Ritterband L.M., Andersson G., Christensen H.M., Carlbring P., Cuijpers P. Directions for the international society for research on Internet interventions (ISRII). J Med Internet Res 2006, 8(3):e23. [Epub 2006/10/13].
4. Wantland D.J., Portillo C.J., Holzemer W.L., Slaughter R., McGhee E.M. The effectiveness of Web-based vs. non-Web-based interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. J Med Internet Res 2004, 6(4):e40. [Epub 2005/01/06].
5. Griffiths F., Lindenmeyer A., Powell J., Lowe P., Thorogood M. Why are health care interventions delivered over the internet? A systematic review of the published literature. J Med Internet Res 2006, 8(2):e10. [Epub 2006/07/27].
6. Pfaeffli L., Maddison R., Whittaker R., Stewart R., Kerr A., Jiang Y., et al. A mHealth cardiac rehabilitation exercise intervention: findings from content development studies. BMC Cardiovasc Disorders 2012, 12:36.
7. Abroms L.C., Ahuja M., Kodl Y., Thaweethai L., Sims J., Winickoff J.P., et al. Text2Quit: results from a pilot test of a personalized, interactive mobile health smoking cessation program. J Health Commun 2012, 17(Suppl 1):44-53.
8. Mattila E., Parkka J., Hermersdorf M., Kaasinen J., Vainio J., Samposalo K., et al. Mobile diary for wellness management-results on usage and usability in two user studies. IEEE Trans Inform Technol Biomed: Publ IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2008, 12(4):501-512.
9. Furlow B. mHealth apps may make chronic disease management easier; 2012. [cited 03.17.13]. http://www.clinicaladvisor.com/mhealth-apps-may-make-chronic-disease-management-easier/article/266782/.
10. Free C., Phillips G., Galli L., Watson L., Felix L., Edwards P., et al. The effectiveness of mobile-health technology-based health behaviour change or disease management interventions for health care consumers: a systematic review. PLoS Med 2013, 10(1):e1001362.
11. Whitlock LA, McLaughlin AC, editors. Usability of blood glucose tracking apps for older users. Human factors and ergonomics society 56th annual meeting. Santa Monica, CA; 2012.
12. Wolf J.A., Moreau J., Akilov O., Patton T., English J.C., Ho J., et al. Diagnostic inaccuracy of smartphone applications for melanoma detection. JAMA Dermatol 2013, 1-4.
13. Patterson E.S., Cook R.I., Render M.L. Improving patient safety by identifying side effects from introducing bar coding in medication administration. J Am Med Inform Assoc: JAMIA 2002, 9(5):540-553.
14. Kossman S.P., Scheidenhelm S.L. Nurses' perceptions of the impact of electronic health records on work and patient outcomes. Comput Inform Nurs: CIN 2008, 26(2):69-77.
15. Kushniruk A., Triola M., Stein B., Borycki E., Kannry J. The relationship of usability to medical error: an evaluation of errors associated with usability problems in the use of a handheld application for prescribing medications. Studies Health Technol Inform 2004, 107(Pt 2):1073-1076.
16. Kaufman D., Roberts W.D., Merrill J., Lai T.Y., Bakken S. Applying an evaluation framework for health information system design, development, and implementation. Nurs Res 2006, 55(2 Suppl):S37-S42.
17. Yen P.Y. Health information technology usability evaluation: methods, models and measures 2010, Columbia University, New York.
18. Dumas J.S., Redish J.C. A practical guide to usability testing 1999, Intellect Ltd.
19. Abran A., Khelifi A., Suryn W., Seffah A. Usability meanings and interpretations in ISO standards. Softw Qual J 2003, 11(4):325-338.
20. Shackel B. Usability-context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. In: Shackel B, Richardson SJ, editors. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; 1991.
21. Nielsen J. Heuristic evaluation. Usability inspection methods 1994, John Wiley & Sons, New York (NY). J. Nielsen, R.L. Mack (Eds.).
22. Davis F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart 1989, 13(3):319-340.
23. Folmer E., Bosch J. Architecting for usability: a survey. J Syst Softw 2004, 70(1-2):61-78.
24. Nielsen J., Mack R.L. Usability inspection methods, vol. xxiv 1994, Wiley, New York, 413 p.
25. Shneiderman B., Plaisant C. Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction, vol. xviii 2010, Addison-Wesley, Boston, 606 p. 5th ed.
26. Norman D.A. The design of everyday things, vol. xxi 2002, Basic Books, New York, 257 p. 1st Basic paperback ed.
27. Amith M, Loubser PG, Chapman J, Zoker KC, Rabelo Ferreira FE. Optimization of an EHR mobile application using the UFuRT conceptual framework. In: AMIA annual symposium proceedings/AMIA symposium AMIA symposium; 2012. p. 209-17.
28. Luxton D.D., Mishkind M.C., Crumpton R.M., Ayers T.D., Mysliwiec V. Usability and feasibility of smartphone video capabilities for telehealth care in the US military. Telemed J e-Health: Official J Am Telemed Assoc 2012, 18(6):409-412.
29. Burnay E., Cruz-Correia R., Jacinto T., Sousa A.S., Fonseca J. Challenges of a mobile application for asthma and allergic rhinitis patient enablement-interface and synchronization. Telemed J e-Health: Official J Am Telemed Assoc 2013, 19(1):13-18.
30. Sheehan B., Lee Y.J., Rodriguez M., Tiase V., Schnall R. A comparison of usability factors of four mobile devices for accessing healthcare information by adolescents. Appl Clin Inform 2012, 3(4):356-366.
31. Sparkes J., Valaitis R., McKibbon A. A usability study of patients setting up a cardiac event loop recorder and BlackBerry gateway for remote monitoring at home. Telemed J e-Health: J Am Telemed Assoc 2012, 18(6):484-490.
32. Zhang D.S., Adipat B. Challenges, methodologies, and issues in the usability testing of mobile applications. Int J Hum-Comput Int 2005, 18(3):293-308.
33. Schnall R., Smith A.B., Sikka M., Gordon P., Camhi E., Kanter T., et al. Employing the FITT framework to explore HIV case managers' perceptions of two electronic clinical data (ECD) summary systems. Int J Med Inform 2012, 81(10):e56-e62.
34. McHorney C.A., Ware J.E., Lu J.F., Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994, 32(1):40-66.
35. Creswell J.W. Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five traditions 1998, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (CA).
36. Schnall R., Okoniewski A., Tiase V., Low A., Rodriguez M., Kaplan S. Using text messaging to assess adolescents' health information needs: an ecological momentary assessment. J Med Internet Res 2013, 15(3):e54.
37. Lieber E., Weisner T.S. Meeting the practical challenges of mixed methods research. Mix methods soc behav res 2010, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (CA). 2nd ed.
38. Lieber E. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: insights into design and analysis issues. J Ethnogr Qual Res 2009, 3(4):218-227.
39. Birkimer J.C., Brown J.H. Back to basics - percentage agreement measures are adequate, but there are easier ways. J Appl Behav Anal 1979, 12(4):535-543.
40. Vodopivec-Jamsek V., de Jongh T., Gurol-Urganci I., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging for preventive health care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 12:CD007457.
41. Whittaker R., Merry S., Dorey E., Maddison R. A development and evaluation process for mHealth interventions: examples from New Zealand. J Health Commun 2012, 17(Suppl 1):11-21.
42. Cimino J.J. Desiderata for controlled medical vocabularies in the twenty-first century. Methods Inf Med 1998, 37(4-5):394-403. [Epub 1998/12/29].
43. 9241-11. I. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) ~ Part 11: Guidance on usability; 1998.
44. Yen PY, Wantland D, Bakken S. Development of a customizable health IT usability evaluation scale. In: AMIA annual symposium proceedings/AMIA symposium AMIA symposium; 2010. p. 917-21 [Epub 2011/02/25].
45. Ash J.S., Guappone K.P. Qualitative evaluation of health information exchange efforts. J Biomed Inform 2007, 40(6 Suppl):S33-S39.
46. Kaufman DR, Starren J, Patel VL, Morin PC, Hilliman C, Pevzner J, et al. A cognitive framework for understanding barriers to the productive use of a diabetes home telemedicine system. In: AMIA annual symposium proceedings/AMIA symposium AMIA, symposium; 2003. p. 356-60.
47. Sandelowski M. Rigor or rigor mortis: the problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 1993, 16(2):1-8.
48. Angen M.J. Evaluating interpretive inquiry: reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qual Health Res 2000, 10(3):378-395.