Cited by 52Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsUsability and User Interface DesignDigital Mental Health Interventions

Sustainable Development for Mobile Health Apps Using the Human-Centered Design Process

Open access
An, Qingfan, Kelley, Marjorie M, Hanners, Audra, Yen, Po-Yin·2023·JMIR Formative Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Well-documented scientific evidence indicates that mobile health (mHealth) apps can improve the quality of life, relieve symptoms, and restore health for patients. In addition to improving patients’ health outcomes, mHealth apps reduce health care use and the cost burdens associated with disease management. Currently, patients and health care providers have a wide variety of choices among commercially available mHealth apps. However, due to the high resource costs and low user adoption of mHealth apps, the cost-benefit relationship remains controversial. When compared to traditional expert-driven approaches, applying human-centered design (HCD) may result in more useable, acceptable, and effective mHealth apps. In this paper, we summarize current HCD practices in mHealth development studies and make recommendations to improve the sustainability of mHealth. These recommendations include consideration of factors regarding culture norms, iterative evaluations on HCD practice, use of novelty in mHealth app, and consideration of privacy and reliability across the entire HCD process. Additionally, we suggest a sociotechnical lens toward HCD practices to promote the sustainability of mHealth apps. Future research should consider standardizing the HCD practice to help mHealth researchers and developers avoid barriers associated with inadequate HCD practices.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/45694

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The quantitative CHW-MUAAT scale provides a standardized, scalable way to summarize usability and acceptability constructs, facilitating comparison of potential digital tools in one environment or of the functionality of a single tool in different contexts.

    “This quantitative CHW-MUAAT scale provides a standardized, scalable way to summarize usability and acceptability constructs, which facilitates comparison of potential digital tools in one environment or of the functionality of a single tool in different contexts [26].”

    From Adapting and Validating Tools to Assess the Usability and Acceptability of mHealth Tools Among Community Health Workers in Rural Settings: Development and Usability Study (2026) · cites this paper as [26]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 78 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [18]An Q Kelley MM Yen PY Using experience-based co-design to develop mHealth app for digital pulmonary rehabilitation management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Communications in Computer and Information Science 2021 Birkhäuser Verlag AG Springer International Publishing 125 133
  2. [64]Bartlett R Milligan C What Is Diary Method? 2015 London Bloomsbury Academic 144

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
An, Q., Kelley, M. M., Hanners, A., & Yen, P.-Y.
Affiliations
  • Umeå University (SE)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
An, Qingfan
Venue
JMIR Formative Research
Published
2023-08-25
Volume
7
Pages
e45694
ISSN
2561-326X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4382401163
Cited by
52
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 2
FWCI
18.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Formative Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DiVA at Umeå University (Umeå University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
mobile health apps, human-centered design, sustainable development, user adoption, cost-benefit analysis, privacy, reliability, iterative evaluation, disease management, healthcare cost reduction

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