Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, NY, United States.
Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, NY, United States; Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Int J Med Inform. 2024 Apr;184:105355. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105355. Epub 2024 Feb 12.
Mobile health (mHealth) technology is now widely used across health conditions and populations. The rigorous development of these tools has yielded improved health outcomes, yet the ideal approach for developing mHealth tools continues to evolve, indicating the need for rigorous usability evaluation methods. This study compares two usability evaluation methods - cognitive interviews and usability assessments employing a think-aloud approach - for adapting an evidence-based mHealth tool from English into Spanish.
We conducted cognitive interviews and usability assessments using a think-aloud protocol to evaluate the usability of an HIV mHealth application among 40 Spanish-speaking adults with HIV in New York City, NY, and La Romana, Dominican Republic. The Health IT Usability Evaluation Model (Health-ITUEM) was used to guide the analysis of qualitative data collected from each method.
Participants (N = 40) averaged 43 years old (SD = 12.26; range 20-79), identified primarily Hispanic/Latino (92.5 %), and resided in La Romana (50 %) or New York City (50 %). Both usability evaluation methods yielded similar findings, highlighting learnability and information needs as crucial components of participant feedback for the mHealth application. Cognitive interviews captured participants' perspectives on the app's interface and design. On the other hand, results from usability assessments offered insights into participants' competency while interacting with the mHealth tool.
Findings from this study highlight the contributions and limitations of including cognitive interviews and task-based usability assessments using a think-aloud approach in mHealth usability testing. Future research should employ a multi-method approach, incorporating complementary usability evaluation methods and engaging participants in multiple assessments. Using complementary usability evaluation methods may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the usability and participant experience aspects of a mHealth tool compared to using a single usability evaluation method.
移动健康(mHealth)技术现已广泛应用于各种健康状况和人群。这些工具的严格开发带来了改善的健康结果,但开发 mHealth 工具的理想方法仍在不断发展,这表明需要严格的可用性评估方法。本研究比较了两种可用性评估方法 - 认知访谈和使用出声思维方法进行的可用性评估 - 用于将基于证据的 mHealth 工具从英语改编为西班牙语。
我们在纽约市和多米尼加共和国拉罗马纳的 40 名讲西班牙语的 HIV 成年人中进行了认知访谈和使用出声思维协议的可用性评估,以评估 HIV mHealth 应用程序的可用性。健康信息技术可用性评估模型(Health-ITUEM)用于指导从每种方法收集的定性数据的分析。
参与者(N = 40)的平均年龄为 43 岁(SD = 12.26; 范围 20-79),主要是西班牙裔/拉丁裔(92.5%),居住在拉罗马纳(50%)或纽约市(50%)。两种可用性评估方法均得出相似的发现,突出了可学习性和信息需求是参与者对 mHealth 应用程序反馈的关键组成部分。认知访谈捕捉了参与者对应用程序界面和设计的看法。另一方面,可用性评估的结果提供了参与者在与 mHealth 工具交互时的能力见解。
本研究的结果强调了在 mHealth 可用性测试中纳入认知访谈和使用出声思维方法进行基于任务的可用性评估的贡献和局限性。未来的研究应该采用多方法方法,结合互补的可用性评估方法,并让参与者参与多次评估。与使用单一可用性评估方法相比,使用互补的可用性评估方法可能会更全面地了解 mHealth 工具的可用性和参与者体验方面。