IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i3p785-d313372.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological Quality of Manuscripts Reporting on the Usability of Mobile Applications for Pain Assessment and Management: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Ana F. Almeida

    (Institute of Electronics and Informatics Engineering of Aveiro (IEETA), Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Nelson P. Rocha

    (Institute of Electronics and Informatics Engineering of Aveiro (IEETA), Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
    Department of Medical Sciences, Universidade de Aveiro - Edifício 30, Agras do Crasto - Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Anabela G. Silva

    (School of Health Sciences, Universidade de Aveiro - Edifício 30, Agras do Crasto - Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
    Center for Health Technology and Services Research, Universidade de Aveiro (CINTESIS.UA), Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

Abstract

Background: 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. Objective: this study aimed to synthesize and evaluate existing studies on the assessment of the usability of pain-related apps using a newly developed scale. Methods: an electronic search was conducted in several databases, combining relevant keywords. Then titles and abstracts were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria. The eligible studies were retrieved and independently screened for inclusion by two authors. Disagreements were resolved by discussion until consensus was reached. Results: a total of 31 articles were eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment revealed that most manuscripts did not assess usability using valid instruments or triangulation of methods of usability assessment. Most manuscripts also failed to assess the three domains of usability (effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction). Conclusions: future studies should consider existing guidelines on usability assessment design, development and assessment of pain-related apps.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana F. Almeida & Nelson P. Rocha & Anabela G. Silva, 2020. "Methodological Quality of Manuscripts Reporting on the Usability of Mobile Applications for Pain Assessment and Management: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-12, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:3:p:785-:d:313372
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/785/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/785/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rute Bastardo & Ana Isabel Martins & João Pavão & Anabela Gonçalves Silva & Nelson Pacheco Rocha, 2021. "Methodological Quality of User-Centered Usability Evaluation of Ambient Assisted Living Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Rolf Wynn & Elia Gabarron & Jan-Are K. Johnsen & Vicente Traver, 2020. "Special Issue on E-Health Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-6, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:3:p:785-:d:313372. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.