4.2 Article

Content and Usability Evaluation of Medication Adherence Mobile Applications for Use in Pediatrics

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC PSYCHOLOGY
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 333-342

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsy086

关键词

adherence; behavior change technique; m-health; mobile app; usability

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [T32HD068223]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate commercially available medication adherence apps for the inclusion of behavior change techniques (BCTs) and to conduct a usability analysis on a subset of apps with adolescents and young adults living with a chronic illness. Methods Medication adherence apps were identified via a search of iTunes app store in August 2016. Seventy-five apps meeting initial inclusion criteria were independently coded by two researchers for the presence/absence of 26 BCTs. Twenty adolescents and young adults (ages: 13-20 years) with inflammatory bowel disease conducted usability testing on a subset of apps (n=4). Results Across 75 apps coded for presence/absence of 26 BCTs, only 7 unique BCTs were identified. The number of BCTs per app ranged from 2 to 6, with an average of 3.3 BCTs. In usability testing, quality ratings varied across apps. Medisafe received the highest average scores on engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information subscales. Medisafe and MyTherapy ranked first and second, respectively, on overall quality and perceived impact ratings. Conclusion Content evaluation revealed only a limited number of BCTs that have been translated to medication adherence apps. Among apps with comparable content, clear user preferences emerged based on perceived quality and usability. Greater collaboration is needed between psychologists and health technologists to incorporate more evidence-based BCTs in apps. Findings also indicate a need for app developers to consider and incorporate the preferences of younger end users to improve app quality and engagement for pediatric populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据