Measuring QoE of a Teleconsultation App in Mental Health Using a Pentagram Model
Open accessAbstract
The QoE measurement has become a novel theme today. To achieve a quality service and minimize the negative impact that traffic on network can cause, it's very important to manage the devices that intervene in this service. Hence, the QoE evaluation allows obtaining benefits both customers and service providers. The main objective of this paper is to measure QoE of a teleconsultation application in Mental Health named Psiconnect, using an approach based on pentagram model. For the QoE evaluation of Psiconnect application we used the pentagram model based on the measurement of 5 factors (integrality, retainability, availability, usability, and instantaneousness). This model allows to design quantifiable metrics for quality evaluations. Using the model cited the value of QoE for Psiconnect is 1.793 (between 1.6 and 1.8). Comparing with Mean Opinion Scores (MOS) test, some users are dissatisfied with the use of the application although the result is near 1.8, so the most of users are satisfied with the use of teleconsultation service based in Skype in the Psiconnect app. There are different models to measure QoE having into account subjective parameters. This is important an estimation of QoE in a quantitative form. Other models can be used to improve the quality of apps.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In [41], authors proposed a QoE model to measure QoE of a teleconsultation app using five factors: integrality, retainability, availability, usability and instantaneousness.
“In [41], authors proposed a QoE model to measure QoE of a teleconsultation app.First, they identified five factors which impact QoE.These factors are integrality, retainability, availability, usability and instantaneousness.”
From QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [41]
The Methods section describes a five-factor pentagram model, and Table 1 names integrality, retainability, availability, usability, and instantaneousness. But the Introduction says the authors used an existing model-based approach [12], while the Conclusion says proposing a new model is future work; this paper did not propose the model as claimed. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A method to standardize usability metrics into a single score
Sauro, J., & Kindlund, E. (2005) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1054972.1055028 · Cited by 299 · see citing works
Shin, D. (2017) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2017.02.006 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
Analysis of QoS Requirements for e-Health Services and Mapping to Evolved Packet System QoS Classes
Skorin‐Kapov, L., & Matijašević, M. (2010) · International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications · doi:10.1155/2010/628086 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Martínez-Pérez, B., Díez, I. D. L. T., Candelas-Plasencia, S., & López-Coronado, M. (2013) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-013-9976-x · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Quality of Experience in the Multimedia Internet of Things: Definition and practical use-cases
Floris, A., & Atzori, L. (2015) · 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW) · doi:10.1109/iccw.2015.7247433 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
A multi-dimensional view of QoE: the ARCU model
Skorin‐Kapov, L., & Varela, M. (2012) · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Model-Based Approach to Measuring Quality of Experience
Gong, Y., Yang, F., Lin, H., & Su, S. (2009) · International Conference on Emerging Network Intelligence (EMERGING) · doi:10.1109/emerging.2009.17 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
An Internet of Things QoE evaluation method based on multiple linear regression analysis
Li, L., Rong, M., & Zhang, G. (2015) · 2015 10th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE) · doi:10.1109/iccse.2015.7250382 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
QoE assessment model for multimedia streaming services using QoS parameters
Kim, H. J., & Choi, S. G. (2013) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-013-1507-8 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
YouTube QoE evaluation tool for Android wireless terminals
Gómez, G., Hortigüela, L., Pérez, Q., Lorca, J., García, R., & Aguayo‐Torres, M. C. (2014) · EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking · doi:10.1186/1687-1499-2014-164 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Systematic Review about QoS and QoE in Telemedicine and eHealth Services and Applications
Díez, I. D. L. T., Alonso, S. G., Hamrioui, S., López-Coronado, M., & Cruz, E. M. (2018) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-018-1040-4 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Self-citationOn the ambiguity of Quality of Service and Quality of Experience requirements for eHealth services
Ullah, M., Fiedler, M., & Wac, K. (2012) · International Symposium on Medical Information and Communication Technology · doi:10.1109/ismict.2012.6203030 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
A framework of scalable QoE modeling for application explosion in the Internet of Things
Ikeda, Y., Kouno, S., Shiozu, A., & Noritake, K. (2016) · 2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) · doi:10.1109/wf-iot.2016.7845393 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Supporting QoE/QoS-aware end-to-end network slicing in future 5G-enabled optical networks
Montero, R., Pagès, A., Agraz, F., et al. (2019) · doi:10.1117/12.2508579 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
QoE-driven resource allocation for massive video distribution
Cicco, L. D., Mascolo, S., & Palmisano, V. (2019) · Ad Hoc Networks · doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2019.02.008 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
QoE for telemedicine: challenges and trends
Cavaro‐Ménard, C., Lu, Z. G., & Callet, P. L. (2013) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.2027293 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
A Service Implementation Scenario Measuring Users' QoE
Wang, W. (2007) · Beijing Youdian Xueyuan xuebao · Cited by 9 · see citing works
QoE-based management of medical video transmission in wireless networks
Ojanperä, T., Uitto, M., & Vehkaperä, J. (2014) · IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS) · doi:10.1109/noms.2014.6838405 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
An intelligent sampling framework for controlled experimentation and QoE modeling
Khokhar, M. J., Saber, N. A., Spetebroot, T., et al. (2018) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2018.10.011 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
A Survey on Multimedia Quality of Experience Assessment Approaches in Mobile Healthcare Scenarios
Péteri, T., Varga, N., & Bokor, L. (2016) · Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49655-9_59 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
An Autonomic QoE-Aware Management Architecture for Software-Defined Networking
Volpato, F., da Silva, M. P., Gonçalves, A. L., et al. (2017) · IEEE International Conference on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE) · doi:10.1109/wetice.2017.66 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Krasula, L., & Callet, P. L. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-811889-4.00004-x · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Neural Network Model of QoE for Estimation Video Streaming over 5G network
Lounis, A., Alilat, F., & Agoulmine, N. (2018) · HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Evaluación de QoE en servicios IP basada en parámetros de QoS
Neyra, J. M., Irizar, C. A., & Calderón, C. A. (2019) · Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions
Fizza, K., Banerjee, A., Mitra, K., Jayaraman, P. P., Ranjan, R., Patel, P., & Georgakopoulos, D. (2021) · Discover Internet of Things · doi:10.1007/s43926-021-00006-7 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
- Authors
- de la Torre Díez, I., Alonso, S. G., Cruz, E. M., & Franco, M. A.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de Valladolid (ES)
- Institut d'Électronique et des Technologies du numéRique (FR)
- Hospital Virgen de la Concha (ES)
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Systems
- Published
- 2019-06-01
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 213-213
- ISSN
- 0148-5598 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-689X
- OpenAlex
- W2947453641
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Systems (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Hispana (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- UVaDOC UVaDOC University of Valladolid Documentary Repository (University of Valladolid) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Funders
- Banco Santander
- European Commission (AAL-20125036)
- Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo (AAL-20125036)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- quality of experience, teleconsultation, mental health, Skype, mean opinion score, usability, integrality, availability, user satisfaction, mobile health apps
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Mental Health, Quality of Health Care, Patient Satisfaction, Remote Consultation, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Mobile Applications
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
