Cited by 98Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsUsability and User Interface Design

A mobile app–based intervention for depression: end-user and expert usability testing study

Open access
Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, Matthew, Richardson, Ben, Klein, Britt, Skouteris, Helen, Christensen, Helen, Austin, David, Castle, David, Mihalopoulos, Cathrine +4 more·2018·JMIR Mental Health

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing number of mental health apps available for smartphones, the perceived usability of these apps from the perspectives of end users or health care experts has rarely been reported. This information is vital, particularly for self-guided mHealth interventions, as perceptions of navigability and quality of content are likely to impact participant engagement and treatment compliance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a usability evaluation of a personalized, self-guided, app-based intervention for depression. METHODS: Participants were administered the System Usability Scale and open-ended questions as part of a semistructured interview. There were 15 participants equally divided into 3 groups: (1) individuals with clinical depression who were the target audience for the app, (2) mental health professionals, and (3) researchers who specialize in the area of eHealth interventions and/or depression research. RESULTS: The end-user group rated the app highly, both in quantitative and qualitative assessments. The 2 expert groups highlighted the self-monitoring features and range of established psychological treatment options (such as behavioral activation and cognitive restructuring) but had concerns that the amount and layout of content may be difficult for end users to navigate in a self-directed fashion. The end-user data did not confirm these concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Encouraging participant engagement via self-monitoring and feedback, as well as personalized messaging, may be a viable way to maintain participation in self-guided interventions. Further evaluation is necessary to determine whether levels of engagement with these features enhance treatment effects.

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/mental.9445

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.

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 43 · Cited by 98

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [14]Sensis Social Media Report (1st ed) 2017 https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/535ef142/files/uploaded/Sensis_Social_Media_Report_2017-Chapter-1.pdf

Authors
Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., Richardson, B., Klein, B., Skouteris, H., Christensen, H., Austin, D., Castle, D., Mihalopoulos, C., O'Donnell, R., Arulkadacham, L., Shatte, A., & Ware, A.
Affiliations
  • Cairnmillar Institute (AU)
  • Federation University (AU)
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • Black Dog Institute (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
Venue
JMIR Mental Health
Published
2018-08-23
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
e54
ISSN
2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2809032519
Cited by
98
References
43
Citations by year
2025: 8 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 6
FWCI
11.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Australian Rotary Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
depression, mobile health apps, usability evaluation, self-guided intervention, end-user perspective, mental health professionals, System Usability Scale, self-monitoring, behavioral activation, cognitive restructuring, message tailoring, participant engagement, medication adherence

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