Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Medical Systems
Erschienen in: Journal of Medical Systems 2/2015

01.02.2015 | Mobile Systems

Empirical Studies on Usability of mHealth Apps: A Systematic Literature Review

verfasst von: Belén Cruz Zapata, José Luis Fernández-Alemán, Ali Idri, Ambrosio Toval

Erschienen in: Journal of Medical Systems | Ausgabe 2/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The release of smartphones and tablets, which offer more advanced communication and computing capabilities, has led to the strong emergence of mHealth on the market. mHealth systems are being used to improve patients’ lives and their health, in addition to facilitating communication between doctors and patients. Researchers are now proposing mHealth applications for many health conditions such as dementia, autism, dysarthria, Parkinson’s disease, and so on. Usability becomes a key factor in the adoption of these applications, which are often used by people who have problems when using mobile devices and who have a limited experience of technology. The aim of this paper is to investigate the empirical usability evaluation processes described in a total of 22 selected studies related to mHealth applications by means of a Systematic Literature Review. Our results show that the empirical evaluation methods employed as regards usability could be improved by the adoption of automated mechanisms. The evaluation processes should also be revised to combine more than one method. This paper will help researchers and developers to create more usable applications. Our study demonstrates the importance of adapting health applications to users’ need.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Hernandez Munoz, L. U., Woolley, S. I., A user-centered mobile health device to manage life-threatening anaphylactic allergies and provide support in allergic reactions. 9th Int. Conf. Inf. Technol. Appl. Biomed. ITAB 2009. pp 1–4, 2009.
2.
3.
4.
Lee, H., Ahn, H., Choi, S., and Choi, W., The SAMS: Smartphone Addiction Management System and Verification. J. Med. Syst. 38:1–10, 2014.CrossRef
5.
6.
7.
Lobo, D., Kaskaloglu, K., Kim, C. Y., and Herbert, S., Web usability guidelines for smartphones : a synergic approach. Int. J. Inf. Electron. Eng. 1:33–37, 2011.
8.
9.
10.
Liu, B., Lin, J., Sadeh, N., Reconciling mobile app privacy and usability on smartphones: could user privacy profiles help? Proc. 23rd Int. Conf. World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, pp 201–212, 2014.
11.
12.
13.
Barendse, R. J., van Dam, T. B., Nelwan, S. P., Portable platform independent patient monitoring. Comput. Cardiol. Conf. CinC. pp 983–986, 2013.
14.
Martinez-Perez, B., de la Torre-Diez, I., and Lopez-Coronado, M., Mobile Health Applications for the Most Prevalent Conditions by the World Health Organization: Review and Analysis. J. Med. Internet. Res. 15:e120, 2013.CrossRef
15.
Onashoga, S. A., Sodiya, A. S., Omilani, T. O., Ajisegiri, H. O., A mobile phone-based antenatal care support system. Proc. 2011 21st Int. Conf. Syst. Eng. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 410–415, 2011.
16.
De Barros, A. C., Cevada, J., Bayés, À., et al., User-centred design of a mobile self-management solution for Parkinson’s disease. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Mob. Ubiquitous Multimed. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 23:1–23:10, 2013.
17.
World Health Organization, mHealth: New horizons for health through mobile technologies, 2011.
18.
Coursaris, C. K., and Kim, D. J., A meta-analytical review of empirical mobile usability studies. J. Usability Stud. 6:11:117–11:171, 2011.
19.
Baharuddin, R., Singh, D., and Razali, R., Usability dimensions for mobile applications—A review. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 5:2225–2231, 2013.
20.
International Organisation for Standardisation ISO 9241–11:1998 Guidance on usability.
21.
International Organisation for Standardisation ISO/IEC 9126–1 Quality model.
22.
ISO/IEC 25010:2011 System and software quality models.
23.
Abran, A., Khelifi, A., Suryn, W., Seffah, A., Consolidating the ISO usability models. Submitt. 11th Int. Softw. Qual. Manag. Conf. 8th Annu. INSPIRE Conf., 2003.
24.
Dix, A., Finlay, J. E., Abowd, G. D., and Beale, R., Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, 2003.
25.
Nielsen, J., Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, 1993.MATH
26.
Insfran, E., and Fernandez, A., A Systematic Review of Usability Evaluation in Web Development. In: Hartmann, S., Zhou, X., and Kirchberg, M. (Eds.), Web Information System Engineering – WISE 2008 Workshop. Springer, Berlin, pp. 81–91, 2008.CrossRef
27.
Kitchenham, B., Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Departament of Computer Science, Keele University, 2004.
28.
Fernández-Alemán, J. L., Señor, I. C., Lozoya, P. Á. O., and Toval, A., Security and privacy in electronic health records: a systematic literature review. J. Biomed. Inform. 46:541–562, 2013.CrossRef
29.
Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., et al., Lessons from Applying the Systematic Literature Review Process Within the Software Engineering Domain. J. Syst. Softw. 80:571–583, 2007.CrossRef
30.
Stone, P. W., Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice. Appl. Nurs. Res. 15:197–198, 2002.CrossRef
31.
Ouhbi, S., Idri, A., Fernández-Alemán, J. L., Toval, A., Requirements engineering education: a systematic mapping study. Requir. Eng. 1–20, 2013.
32.
33.
34.
Bowyer, K. W., Mentoring advice on “Conferences Versus Journals” for CSE Faculty, 2012.
35.
Reynoldson, C., Stones, C., Allsop, M., et al., Assessing the Quality and Usability of Smartphone Apps for Pain Self-Management. Pain Med. 15:898–909, 2014.CrossRef
36.
Fritz, F., Balhorn, S., Riek, M., et al., Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of EHR-integrated mobile patient questionnaires regarding usability and cost-efficiency. Int. J. Med. Inf. 81:303–313, 2012.CrossRef
37.
Lawson, S., Jamison-Powell, S., Garbett, A., et al., Validating a mobile phone application for the everyday, unobtrusive, objective measurement of sleep. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 2497–2506, 2013.
38.
Holzinger, A., Kosec, P., Schwantzer, G., et al., Design and development of a mobile computer application to reengineer workflows in the hospital and the methodology to evaluate its effectiveness. J. Biomed. Inform. 44:968–977, 2011.CrossRef
39.
Zargaran, E., Schuurman, N., Nicol, A. J., et al., The Electronic Trauma Health Record: Design and Usability of a Novel Tablet-Based Tool for Trauma Care and Injury Surveillance in Low Resource Settings. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 218:41–50, 2014.CrossRef
40.
Hwang, Y., Shin, D., Yang, C.-Y., et al., Developing a voice user interface with improved usability for people with dysarthria. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Comput. Help. People Spec. Needs - Vol. Part II. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 117–124, 2012.
41.
de Barros, A. C., Leitão, R., and Ribeiro, J., Design and Evaluation of a Mobile User Interface for Older Adults: Navigation, Interaction and Visual Design Recommendations. Procedia Comput. Sci. 27:369–378, 2014.CrossRef
42.
Kascak, L., Rébola, C. B., Braunstein, R., Sanford, J., Mobile application concept development for remote patient monitoring. Proc. 2013 I.E. Int. Conf. Healthc. Inform. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 545–550, 2013.
43.
Costa, R., Marcelino, L., Silva, C., Profile-based system for nutritional information management. 2013 I.E. 15th Int. Conf. E-Health Netw. Appl. Serv. Heal. pp 638–642, 2013.
44.
Hosono, N., Miyajima, F., Inaba, T., et al., The urgent communication system for deaf and language dysfunction people. Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Hum. Interface Manag. Inf. Inf. Interact. Health Saf. Mobil. Complex Environ. - Vol. Part II. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 269–274, 2013.
45.
Khan, S., Tahir, M. N., Raza, A., Usability issues for smartphone users with special needs - Autism. 2013 Int. Conf. Open Source Syst. Technol. ICOSST. pp 107–113, 2013.
46.
Navarro, R. F., Favela, J., Usability assessment of a pervasive system to assist caregivers in dealing with repetitive behaviors of patients with dementia. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. PErvasive Technol. Relat. Assist. Environ. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 28:1–28:8, 2011.
47.
Khan, D. U., Ananthanarayan, S., Le, A. T., et al., Designing mobile snack application for low socioeconomic status families. 2012 6th Int. Conf. Pervasive Comput. Technol. Healthc. PervasiveHealth. pp 57–64, 2012.
48.
Tang. H.-H., Jheng, C.-M., Chien, M.-E., et al., iCAN: A tablet-based pedagogical system for improving the user experience of children with autism in the learning process. 2013 Int. Conf. Orange Technol. ICOT. pp 177–180, 2013.
49.
Ferati, M., Mannheimer, S., Bolchini, D., Usability evaluation of acoustic interfaces for the blind. Proc. 29th ACM Int. Conf. Des. Commun. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 9–16, 2011.
50.
Strisland, F., Svagard, I., Seeberg, T. M., et al., ESUMS: A mobile system for continuous home monitoring of rehabilitation patients. 2013 35th Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. EMBC. pp 4670–4673, 2013.
51.
Yamagata, C., Kowtko, M., Coppola, J. F., Joyce, S., Mobile app development and usability research to help dementia and Alzheimer patients. Syst. Appl. Technol. Conf. LISAT 2013 I.E. Long Isl. pp 1–6. 2013.
52.
Kukec, M., Ljubic, S., Glavinic, V. Need for usability and wish for mobility: case study of client end applications for primary healthcare providers in Croatia. Proc. 7th Conf. Workgr. Hum.-Comput. Interact. Usability Eng. Austrian Comput. Soc. Inf. Qual. E-Health. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 171–190, 2011.
53.
Xiao, B., Asghar, M. Z., Jamsa, T, Pulii, P., “Canderoid”: A mobile system to remotely monitor travelling status of the elderly with dementia. 2013 Int. Jt. Conf. Aware. Sci. Technol. Ubi-Media Comput. ICAST-UMEDIA. pp 648–654, 2013.
54.
Gay, V., Leijdekkers, P., Barin, E. Feasibility trial of a novel mobile cardiac rehabilitation application. 2010 12th IEEE Int. Conf. E-Health Netw. Appl. Serv. Heal. pp 86–92, 2010.
55.
Brooke, J., SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind., 1996.
56.
Rai, A., Chen, L., Pye, J., and Baird, A., Understanding Determinants of Consumer Mobile Health Usage Intentions, Assimilation, and Channel Preferences. J. Med. Internet. Res. 15:e149, 2013.CrossRef
57.
Kumar, S., Nilsen, W., Pavel, M., and Srivastava, M., Mobile Health: Revolutionizing Healthcare Through Transdisciplinary Research. Computer 46:28–35, 2013.CrossRef
58.
Fiordelli, M., Diviani, N., and Schulz, P. J., Mapping mHealth Research: A Decade of Evolution. J. Med. Internet. Res. 15:e95, 2013.CrossRef
59.
Riley, W. T., Rivera, D. E., Atienza, A. A., et al., Health behavior models in the age of mobile interventions: are our theories up to the task? Transl. Behav. Med. 1:53–71, 2011.CrossRef
60.
Razvan Andonie, I. D., How to write a good paper in Computer Science and how will it be Measured by ISI Web of Knowledge. Int. J. Comput. V.:432–446, 2010.
61.
62.
Nolan, G., Cinar, O., and Truxall, D., Android best practices, 1st edition. Apress, Berkely, 2013.
63.
Dong, P., Loh, M., and Mondry, A., Publication lag in biomedical journals varies due to the periodical’s publishing model. Scientometrics 69:271–286, 2006.CrossRef
64.
Björk, B.-C., and Solomon, D., The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. J. Inf. 7:914–923, 2013.CrossRef
65.
66.
Chawda, B., Craft, B., Cairns, P., et al., Do “attractive things work better”? An exploration of search tool visualisations. Proc. 19th BCS Conf. Hum. Comput. Interact. pp 46–51, 2005.
67.
Lindgaard, G., Fernandes, G., Dudek, C., and Brown, J., Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! Behav. Inf. Technol. 25:115–126, 2006.CrossRef
68.
Chang, T.-R., Kaasinen, E., Kaipainen, K., What influences users’ decisions to take apps into use?: A framework for evaluating persuasive and engaging design in mobile apps for well-being. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Mob. Ubiquitous Multimed. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 2:1–2:10. 2012.
69.
Sutcliffe, A., Assessing the reliability of heuristic evaluation for website attractiveness and usability. Proc. 35th Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci. HICSS02-Vol. 5 - Vol. 5. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, p 137, 2002.
70.
Capretz, L. F., Ali, A., and Ouda, A., A Conceptual Framework for Measuring the Quality Aspect of Mobile Learning. Bull. IEEE Tech. Comm. Learn Technol. 14:31–34, 2012.
71.
Rauch, M., Mobile documentation: Usability guidelines, and considerations for providing documentation on Kindle, tablets, and smartphones. Prof. Commun. Conf. IPCC 2011 I.E. Int. pp 1–13, 2011.
72.
Arnhold, M., Quade, M., and Kirch, W., Mobile applications for diabetics: a systematic review and expert-based usability evaluation considering the special requirements of diabetes patients age 50 years or older. J. Med. Internet. Res. 16:e104, 2014.CrossRef
73.
Huygens, M., Vermeulen, J., de Witte, L., Expectations of middle-aged and elderly persons towards using telecare technologies and eHealth applications in primary care. pp 241–246, 2014.
74.
Leung, R., Improving the learnability of mobile device applications for older adults. CHI 09 Ext. Abstr. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 3125–3128, 2009.
75.
Fernandez, A., Insfran, E., and Abrahão, S., Usability evaluation methods for the web: A systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53:789–817, 2011.CrossRef
76.
Riihiaho, S., Experiences with usability evaluation methods. Helsinki University of Technology, 2000.
77.
Matera, M., Rizzo, F., and Carughi, G. T., Web Usability: Principles and Evaluation Methods. In: Mosley, N., and Mendes, E. (Eds.), Web Engeneering. Springer, Berlin, pp. 143–180, 2006.CrossRef
78.
Rana, A., and Mridu, M., Analytical Comparison of usability Measurement Methods. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 39:11–18, 2012.
79.
Heo, J., Ham, D.-H., Park, S., et al., A Framework for Evaluating the Usability of Mobile Phones Based on Multi-level, Hierarchical Model of Usability Factors. Interact. Comput. 21:263–275, 2009.CrossRef
80.
Jaspers, M. W. M., A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: Methodological aspects and empirical evidence. Int. J. Med. Inf. 78:340–353, 2009.CrossRef
81.
Boren, T., and Ramey, J., Thinking aloud: reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 43:261–278, 2000.CrossRef
82.
Adams, A., and Cox, A. L., Questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups. In: Cox, A. L., and Cairns, P. (Eds.), Research Methods Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 17–34, 2008.
83.
Bangor, A., Kortum, P., and Miller, J., Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4:114–123, 2009.
84.
Ryu, Y. S., and Smith-Jackson, T. L., Reliability and Validity of the Mobile Phone Usability Questionnaire (MPUQ). J. Usability Stud. 2:39–53, 2006.
85.
Cronbach, L. J., Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334, 1951.CrossRef
86.
Dell, N., Vaidyanathan, V., Medhi, I., et al., “Yours is Better!”: Participant response bias in HCI. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1321–1330, 2012.
87.
Ivory, M. Y., and Hearst, M. A., The State of the Art in Automating Usability Evaluation of User Interfaces. ACM Comput. Surv. 33:470–516, 2001.CrossRef
88.
Fabo, P., Durikovic, R., Automated usability measurement of arbitrary desktop application with eyetracking. Proc. 2012 16th Int. Conf. Inf. Vis. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 625–629, 2012.
89.
Bastien, J. M. C., Usability testing: a review of some methodological and technical aspects of the method. Int. J. Med. Inf. 79:e18–e23, 2010.CrossRef
90.
Waterson, S., Landay, J. A., Matthews, T., In the lab and out in the wild: remote web usability testing for mobile devices. CHI 02 Ext. Abstr. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 796–797, 2002.
91.
Burzacca, P., Paternò, F., Remote usability evaluation of mobile web applications. Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Hum.-Comput. Interact. Hum.-Centred Des. Approaches Methods Tools Environ. - Vol. Part I. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 241–248, 2013.
92.
Thompson, K. E., Rozanski, E. P., Haake, A. R., Here, there, anywhere: remote usability testing that works. Proc. 5th Conf. Inf. Technol. Educ. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 132–137, 2004.
93.
Bruin, J. A. de, Malan, K. M., Eloff, J. H. P., Saccade deviation indicators for automated eye tracking analysis. Proc. 2013 Conf. Eye Track. South Afr. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 47–54. 2013.
94.
Chynal, P., Szymański, J. M., Sobecki, J., Using eyetracking in a mobile applications usability testing. Proc. 4th Asian Conf. Intell. Inf. Database Syst. - Vol. Part III. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 178–186, 2012.
95.
Hornbæk, K., Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 64:79–102, 2006.CrossRef
96.
97.
Mc Carthy, S., Sayers, H., McKevitt, P., Investigating the usability of PDAs with ageing users. Proc. 21st Br. HCI Group Annu. Conf. People Comput. HCIBut We Know It - Vol. 2. British Computer Society, Swinton, UK, UK, pp 67–70, 2007.
98.
Tseng, K. C., Hsu, C.-L., and Chuang, Y.-H., Designing an Intelligent Health Monitoring System and Exploring User Acceptance for the Elderly. J. Med. Syst. 37:1–18, 2013.CrossRef
99.
Pak, R., McLaughlin, A., Designing displays for older adults. CRC Press, 2010.
100.
Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Charness, N., et al., Designing for Older Adults: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches, 2nd edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2009.CrossRef
101.
Chisnell, D. E., Redish, J. C., and Lee, A., New Heuristics for Understanding Older Adults as Web Users. Tech. Commun. 53:39–59, 2006.
102.
103.
Joe, J., and Demiris, G., Older adults and mobile phones for health: A review. J. Biomed. Inform. 46:947–954, 2013.CrossRef
104.
Leo, G. D., Gonzales, C. H., Battagiri, P., and Leroy, G., A Smart-Phone Application and a Companion Website for the Improvement of the Communication Skills of Children with Autism: Clinical Rationale, Technical Development and Preliminary Results. J. Med. Syst. 35:703–711, 2011.CrossRef
105.
Hanna, L., Risden, K., and Alexander, K., Guidelines for Usability Testing with Children. Interactions 4:9–14, 1997.CrossRef
106.
Markopoulos, P., and Bekker, M., On the assessment of usability testing methods for children. Interact. Comput. 15:227–243, 2003.CrossRef
107.
Edwards, H., Benedyk, R., A comparison of usability evaluation methods for child participants in a school setting. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Interact. Des. Child. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 9–16, 2007.
108.
Nielsen, J., Landauer, T. K., A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Proc. INTERACT 93 CHI 93 Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 206–213, 1993.
109.
110.
Gulliksen, J., Göransson, B., Boivie, I., et al., Key principles for user-centred systems design. In: Seffah, A., Gulliksen, J., and Desmarais, M. C. (Eds.), Human-Centered Softwafe Engineering — Integrating Usability Software Devevelopment Lifecycle. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 17–36, 2005.CrossRef
111.
Leonardi, C., Albertini, A., Pianesi, F., Zancanaro, M., An exploratory study of a touch-based gestural interface for elderly. Proc. 6th Nord. Conf. Hum.-Comput. Interact. Extending Boundaries. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 845–850, 2010.
112.
Leitao, R., Silva, P. A., A study of novice older adults and gestural interaction on smartphones. 3rd Workshop Mob. Access. HCI13, 2013.
113.
Nudelman, G., Android design patterns: interaction design solutions for developers. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
114.
115.
116.
Mendoza, A., Mobile user experience: patterns to make sense of it all. Morgan Kaufmann, 2013.
117.
Zapata, B. C., Niñirola, A. H., Idri, A., et al., Mobile PHRs Compliance with Android and iOS Usability Guidelines. J. Med. Syst. 38:1–16, 2014.CrossRef
118.
Plaza, I., MartíN, L., Martin, S., and Medrano, C., Mobile Applications in an Aging Society: Status and Trends. J. Syst. Softw. 84:1977–1988, 2011.CrossRef
119.
Kurniawan, S., Mobile Phone Design for Older Persons. Interactions 14:24–25, 2007.CrossRef
120.
Kalkov, I., Franke, D., Schommer, J. F., Kowalewski, S., A real-time extension to the android platform. Proc. 10th Int. Workshop Java Technol. Real-Time Embed. Syst. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 105–114, 2012.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
Sclafani, J., Tirrell, T. F., and Franko, O. I., Mobile Tablet Use among Academic Physicians and Trainees. J. Med. Syst. 37:1–6, 2013.CrossRef
127.
Robinson, R. L., and Burk, M. S., Tablet Computer Use by Medical Students in the United States. J. Med. Syst. 37:1–4, 2013.
128.
Cheung, A., Janssen, A., Amft, O., et al., Usability of digital media in patients with COPD: a pilot study. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 29:162–165, 2013.CrossRef
129.
Toval, A., Carrillo-de-Gea, J. M., Fernandez-Aleman, J. L., Toval, R., Learning systems development using reusable standard-based requirements catalogs. 2011 I.E. Glob. Eng. Educ. Conf. EDUCON. pp 907–912, 2011.
130.
Sánchez-Henarejos, A., Fernández-Alemán, J. L., Toval, A., et al., Guía de buenas prácticas de seguridad informática en el tratamiento de datos de salud para el personal sanitario en atención primaria. Aten. Primaria 46:214–222, 2014.CrossRef
131.
Cos, J. A., Toval, A., Fernández-Alemán, J. L., et al., Internationalization requirements for e-learning audit purposes. 2012 I.E. Glob. Eng. Educ. Conf. EDUCON. pp 1–6, 2012.
Metadaten
Titel
Empirical Studies on Usability of mHealth Apps: A Systematic Literature Review
verfasst von
Belén Cruz Zapata
José Luis Fernández-Alemán
Ali Idri
Ambrosio Toval
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2015
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Journal of Medical Systems / Ausgabe 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0148-5598
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-689X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-014-0182-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2015

Journal of Medical Systems 2/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Transactional Processing Systems

Advanced Analysis of Auditory Evoked Potentials in Hyperthyroid Patients: The Effect of Filtering

Systems-Level Quality Improvement

Auto-shape Lossless Compression of Pharynx and Esophagus Fluoroscopic Images

Patient Facing Systems

Comparing Methods for Determining Motor-Hand Lateralization Based on fTCD Signals

Systems-Level Quality Improvement

Cryptanalysis and Improvement of a User Authentication Scheme Preserving Uniqueness and Anonymity for Connected Health Care

Patient Facing Systems

Challenges, Alternatives, and Paths to Sustainability: Better Public Health Promotion Using Social Networking Pages as Key Tools

Mobile Systems

A Web Service System Supporting Three-dimensional Post-processing of Medical Images Based on WADO Protocol