Usability Methods and Attributes Reported in Usability Studies of Mobile Apps for Health Care Education: Scoping Review.

health education mobile apps online learning students user-computer interface

Journal

JMIR medical education
ISSN: 2369-3762
Titre abrégé: JMIR Med Educ
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101684518

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 Jun 2022
Historique:
received: 25 03 2022
accepted: 05 06 2022
revised: 02 06 2022
entrez: 29 6 2022
pubmed: 30 6 2022
medline: 30 6 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Mobile devices can provide extendable learning environments in higher education and motivate students to engage in adaptive and collaborative learning. Developers must design mobile apps that are practical, effective, and easy to use, and usability testing is essential for understanding how mobile apps meet users' needs. No previous reviews have investigated the usability of mobile apps developed for health care education. The aim of this scoping review is to identify usability methods and attributes in usability studies of mobile apps for health care education. A comprehensive search was carried out in 10 databases, reference lists, and gray literature. Studies were included if they dealt with health care students and usability of mobile apps for learning. Frequencies and percentages were used to present the nominal data, together with tables and graphical illustrations. Examples include a figure of the study selection process, an illustration of the frequency of inquiry usability evaluation and data collection methods, and an overview of the distribution of the identified usability attributes. We followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews. Our scoping review collated 88 articles involving 98 studies, mainly related to medical and nursing students. The studies were conducted from 22 countries and were published between 2008 and 2021. Field testing was the main usability experiment used, and the usability evaluation methods were either inquiry-based or based on user testing. Inquiry methods were predominantly used: 1-group design (46/98, 47%), control group design (12/98, 12%), randomized controlled trials (12/98, 12%), mixed methods (12/98, 12%), and qualitative methods (11/98, 11%). User testing methods applied were all think aloud (5/98, 5%). A total of 17 usability attributes were identified; of these, satisfaction, usefulness, ease of use, learning performance, and learnability were reported most frequently. The most frequently used data collection method was questionnaires (83/98, 85%), but only 19% (19/98) of studies used a psychometrically tested usability questionnaire. Other data collection methods included focus group interviews, knowledge and task performance testing, and user data collected from apps, interviews, written qualitative reflections, and observations. Most of the included studies used more than one data collection method. Experimental designs were the most commonly used methods for evaluating usability, and most studies used field testing. Questionnaires were frequently used for data collection, although few studies used psychometrically tested questionnaires. The usability attributes identified most often were satisfaction, usefulness, and ease of use. The results indicate that combining different usability evaluation methods, incorporating both subjective and objective usability measures, and specifying which usability attributes to test seem advantageous. The results can support the planning and conduct of future usability studies for the advancement of mobile learning apps in health care education. RR2-10.2196/19072.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Mobile devices can provide extendable learning environments in higher education and motivate students to engage in adaptive and collaborative learning. Developers must design mobile apps that are practical, effective, and easy to use, and usability testing is essential for understanding how mobile apps meet users' needs. No previous reviews have investigated the usability of mobile apps developed for health care education.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
The aim of this scoping review is to identify usability methods and attributes in usability studies of mobile apps for health care education.
METHODS METHODS
A comprehensive search was carried out in 10 databases, reference lists, and gray literature. Studies were included if they dealt with health care students and usability of mobile apps for learning. Frequencies and percentages were used to present the nominal data, together with tables and graphical illustrations. Examples include a figure of the study selection process, an illustration of the frequency of inquiry usability evaluation and data collection methods, and an overview of the distribution of the identified usability attributes. We followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews.
RESULTS RESULTS
Our scoping review collated 88 articles involving 98 studies, mainly related to medical and nursing students. The studies were conducted from 22 countries and were published between 2008 and 2021. Field testing was the main usability experiment used, and the usability evaluation methods were either inquiry-based or based on user testing. Inquiry methods were predominantly used: 1-group design (46/98, 47%), control group design (12/98, 12%), randomized controlled trials (12/98, 12%), mixed methods (12/98, 12%), and qualitative methods (11/98, 11%). User testing methods applied were all think aloud (5/98, 5%). A total of 17 usability attributes were identified; of these, satisfaction, usefulness, ease of use, learning performance, and learnability were reported most frequently. The most frequently used data collection method was questionnaires (83/98, 85%), but only 19% (19/98) of studies used a psychometrically tested usability questionnaire. Other data collection methods included focus group interviews, knowledge and task performance testing, and user data collected from apps, interviews, written qualitative reflections, and observations. Most of the included studies used more than one data collection method.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Experimental designs were the most commonly used methods for evaluating usability, and most studies used field testing. Questionnaires were frequently used for data collection, although few studies used psychometrically tested questionnaires. The usability attributes identified most often were satisfaction, usefulness, and ease of use. The results indicate that combining different usability evaluation methods, incorporating both subjective and objective usability measures, and specifying which usability attributes to test seem advantageous. The results can support the planning and conduct of future usability studies for the advancement of mobile learning apps in health care education.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID) UNASSIGNED
RR2-10.2196/19072.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35767323
pii: v8i2e38259
doi: 10.2196/38259
pmc: PMC9280458
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

e38259

Informations de copyright

©Susanne Grødem Johnson, Thomas Potrebny, Lillebeth Larun, Donna Ciliska, Nina Rydland Olsen. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 29.06.2022.

Références

Med Teach. 2014 Oct;36(10):849-52
pubmed: 24571614
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2017 May 9;2(1):e000085
pubmed: 29766089
Int J Med Educ. 2017 Nov 30;8:416-420
pubmed: 29200402
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 20;5:69
pubmed: 20854677
Fam Med. 2010 May;42(5):350-7
pubmed: 20461567
World J Surg. 2016 Nov;40(11):2571-2580
pubmed: 27417109
Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2016 Jan 05;14(1):1
pubmed: 26728031
JMIR Med Educ. 2015 Jun 08;1(1):e3
pubmed: 27731838
J Burn Care Res. 2014 Nov-Dec;35(6):480-3
pubmed: 24918947
Mhealth. 2017 Oct 18;3:43
pubmed: 29184895
Comput Inform Nurs. 2014 Oct;32(10):497-503
pubmed: 25140444
Comput Inform Nurs. 2018 Nov;36(11):550-559
pubmed: 29901475
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2010 Dec;7(4):205-13
pubmed: 19804588
Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2019 Apr;16(2):115-124
pubmed: 29947101
Healthc Inform Res. 2015 Jul;21(3):191-5
pubmed: 26279956
Eur J Dent Educ. 2015 Nov;19(4):222-8
pubmed: 25393811
Clin Teach. 2013 Feb;10(1):47-50
pubmed: 23294744
Nurse Educ Pract. 2020 Nov;49:102905
pubmed: 33137561
Am J Pharm Educ. 2019 Aug;83(6):6800
pubmed: 31507274
Acad Radiol. 2015 Feb;22(2):247-55
pubmed: 25964956
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2017 Dec 08;4:2382120517746384
pubmed: 29349345
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Mar 10;22(3):e16258
pubmed: 32154784
Int J Med Inform. 2016 May;89:15-24
pubmed: 26980355
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Oct 19;16(1):274
pubmed: 27756288
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Oct 30;16(21):
pubmed: 31671592
J Dent Educ. 2015 Apr;79(4):439-47
pubmed: 25838016
BMC Med Educ. 2008 Nov 18;8:50
pubmed: 19017400
Emerg Med J. 2015 Aug;32(8):637-41
pubmed: 25371408
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2020 Jul;12(7):786-803
pubmed: 32540040
Educ Prim Care. 2010 Jan;21(1):6-8
pubmed: 20202315
Mhealth. 2016 Jul 22;2:29
pubmed: 28293602
PLoS One. 2021 Jul 12;16(7):e0254272
pubmed: 34252136
J Med Syst. 2019 Aug 27;43(10):313
pubmed: 31451942
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Jun 11;6(6):e10263
pubmed: 29891469
Anat Sci Educ. 2019 May;12(3):284-299
pubmed: 30378278
Pain Med. 2018 Jun 1;19(6):1121-1131
pubmed: 28340247
J Med Syst. 2016 Jun;40(6):151
pubmed: 27142275
J Nurs Educ. 2016 Jan;55(1):56-9
pubmed: 26812386
J Dent Educ. 2019 Nov;83(11):1345-1352
pubmed: 31406007
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2016 Feb;13(1):59-65
pubmed: 26773417
Nurse Educ Pract. 2021 Jan;50:102961
pubmed: 33421681
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2020 Apr;17(2):173-175
pubmed: 32233017
Int J Med Educ. 2017 May 31;8:207-216
pubmed: 28578320
Clin Simul Nurs. 2018 Feb;15:34-41
pubmed: 29861797
J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2020 Feb 4;33(3):205-210
pubmed: 32039960
J Grad Med Educ. 2016 Oct;8(4):569-575
pubmed: 27777669
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2016 Apr;13(2):118-23
pubmed: 26821833
J Educ Health Promot. 2020 Nov 26;9:325
pubmed: 33426129
Nurse Educ Today. 2019 Sep;80:1-8
pubmed: 31175963
Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210
pubmed: 27919275
Appl Clin Inform. 2017 May 10;8(2):470-490
pubmed: 28487932
Adv Physiol Educ. 2014 Jun;38(2):155-60
pubmed: 24913451
BMC Med Educ. 2021 Jun 23;21(1):354
pubmed: 34162382
Int J Med Inform. 2010 Apr;79(4):e18-23
pubmed: 19345139
Perspect Med Educ. 2021 Dec;10(6):373-377
pubmed: 33095399
Comput Inform Nurs. 2012 Jun;30(6):321-9
pubmed: 22411413
JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Aug 4;9(8):e19072
pubmed: 32750011
Int J Med Inform. 2020 Apr;136:104074
pubmed: 31926355
Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Feb;61:112-119
pubmed: 29197263
Int J Med Inform. 2018 Oct;118:72-77
pubmed: 30153925
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2021 Sep;13(9):1228-1235
pubmed: 34330403
Anat Sci Educ. 2022 May;15(3):535-551
pubmed: 33866682
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:382-6
pubmed: 23920581
Pharmacy (Basel). 2020 Jul 21;8(3):
pubmed: 32708150
Adv Physiol Educ. 2014 Mar;38(1):34-41
pubmed: 24585467
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Feb 28;21(2):e12895
pubmed: 30816847
J Surg Educ. 2018 May - Jun;75(3):628-638
pubmed: 28888420

Auteurs

Susanne Grødem Johnson (SG)

Faculty of Health and Function, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.

Thomas Potrebny (T)

Faculty of Health and Function, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.

Lillebeth Larun (L)

Division of Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

Donna Ciliska (D)

Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Nina Rydland Olsen (NR)

Faculty of Health and Function, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.

Classifications MeSH