Department of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Institute of Medical Informatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2024 Apr 5;12:e52179. doi: 10.2196/52179.
BACKGROUND: Wearable devices, mobile technologies, and their combination have been accepted into clinical use to better assess the physical fitness and quality of life of patients and as preventive measures. Usability is pivotal for overcoming constraints and gaining users' acceptance of technology such as wearables and their companion mobile health (mHealth) apps. However, owing to limitations in design and evaluation, interactive wearables and mHealth apps have often been restricted from their full potential. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify studies that have incorporated wearable devices and determine their frequency of use in conjunction with mHealth apps or their combination. Specifically, this study aims to understand the attributes and evaluation techniques used to evaluate usability in the health care domain for these technologies and their combinations. METHODS: We conducted an extensive search across 4 electronic databases, spanning the last 30 years up to December 2021. Studies including the keywords "wearable devices," "mobile apps," "mHealth apps," "physiological data," "usability," "user experience," and "user evaluation" were considered for inclusion. A team of 5 reviewers screened the collected publications and charted the features based on the research questions. Subsequently, we categorized these characteristics following existing usability and wearable taxonomies. We applied a methodological framework for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. RESULTS: A total of 382 reports were identified from the search strategy, and 68 articles were included. Most of the studies (57/68, 84%) involved the simultaneous use of wearables and connected mobile apps. Wrist-worn commercial consumer devices such as wristbands were the most prevalent, accounting for 66% (45/68) of the wearables identified in our review. Approximately half of the data from the medical domain (32/68, 47%) focused on studies involving participants with chronic illnesses or disorders. Overall, 29 usability attributes were identified, and 5 attributes were frequently used for evaluation: satisfaction (34/68, 50%), ease of use (27/68, 40%), user experience (16/68, 24%), perceived usefulness (18/68, 26%), and effectiveness (15/68, 22%). Only 10% (7/68) of the studies used a user- or human-centered design paradigm for usability evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review identified the types and categories of wearable devices and mHealth apps, their frequency of use in studies, and their implementation in the medical context. In addition, we examined the usability evaluation of these technologies: methods, attributes, and frameworks. Within the array of available wearables and mHealth apps, health care providers encounter the challenge of selecting devices and companion apps that are effective, user-friendly, and compatible with user interactions. The current gap in usability and user experience in health care research limits our understanding of the strengths and limitations of wearable technologies and their companion apps. Additional research is necessary to overcome these limitations.
背景:可穿戴设备、移动技术及其组合已被应用于临床,以更好地评估患者的身体状况和生活质量,并作为预防措施。可用性对于克服障碍和获得用户对可穿戴设备及其配套移动健康 (mHealth) 应用程序的接受至关重要。然而,由于设计和评估方面的限制,交互式可穿戴设备和 mHealth 应用程序往往未能充分发挥其潜力。
目的:本研究旨在确定纳入可穿戴设备的研究,并确定它们与 mHealth 应用程序或其组合一起使用的频率。具体来说,本研究旨在了解在医疗保健领域中用于评估这些技术及其组合的可用性的属性和评估技术。
方法:我们在过去 30 年中对 4 个电子数据库进行了广泛搜索,直至 2021 年 12 月。纳入的研究包括关键字“可穿戴设备”、“移动应用程序”、“mHealth 应用程序”、“生理数据”、“可用性”、“用户体验”和“用户评估”。由 5 名评审员组成的团队对收集的出版物进行筛选,并根据研究问题对这些功能进行图表绘制。随后,我们根据现有的可用性和可穿戴分类法对这些特征进行了分类。我们应用了用于范围综述的方法学框架和 PRISMA-ScR(用于系统评价和荟萃分析扩展的首选报告项目扩展用于范围综述)清单。
结果:从搜索策略中确定了 382 份报告,其中有 68 篇文章被纳入。大多数研究(57/68,84%)同时使用了可穿戴设备和连接的移动应用程序。腕戴式商业消费类设备(如腕带)最为常见,占我们综述中确定的可穿戴设备的 66%(45/68)。大约一半来自医学领域的数据(32/68,47%)侧重于涉及慢性病或疾病患者的研究。总体而言,确定了 29 个可用性属性,其中 5 个属性经常用于评估:满意度(34/68,50%)、易用性(27/68,40%)、用户体验(16/68,24%)、有用性感知(18/68,26%)和有效性(15/68,22%)。只有 10%(7/68)的研究使用了用户或以人为中心的设计范式进行可用性评估。
结论:我们的范围综述确定了可穿戴设备和 mHealth 应用程序的类型和类别、它们在研究中的使用频率以及它们在医疗环境中的实施情况。此外,我们还研究了这些技术的可用性评估方法、属性和框架。在可用的可穿戴设备和 mHealth 应用程序中,医疗保健提供者面临着选择有效、用户友好且与用户交互兼容的设备和配套应用程序的挑战。当前在医疗保健研究中可用性和用户体验方面的差距限制了我们对可穿戴技术及其配套应用程序的优势和局限性的理解。需要进一步研究来克服这些限制。
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2024-4-5
J Med Internet Res. 2023-5-12
J Med Internet Res. 2020-1-6
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2025-4-4
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022-1-25
J Med Internet Res. 2025-2-7
J Med Internet Res. 2024-8-7
J Med Internet Res. 2025-2-21
Diagnostics (Basel). 2025-1-30
Digit Health. 2023-2-1
Telemed J E Health. 2023-6
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022-8-31
Cardiovasc Digit Health J. 2022-4-18
Cardiovasc Digit Health J. 2021-4-21
Proc (Graph Interface). 2021-5