CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 89Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsUsability and User Interface Design

Comparison of a User-Centered Design, Self-Management App to Existing mHealth Apps for Persons Living With HIV

Open access
Schnall, Rebecca, Mosley, Jocelyn Patterson, Iribarren, Sarah J, Bakken, Suzanne, Carballo-Diéguez, Alex, Brown III, William·2015·JMIR mHealth and uHealth
DOI 10.2196/mhealth.4882PMC PMC4704937
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is preliminary evidence that mobile health (mHealth) apps are feasible, attractive, and an effective platform for the creation of self-management tools for persons living with HIV (PLWH). As a foundation for the current study, we conducted formative research using focus groups, participatory design sessions, and usability evaluation methods to inform the development of a health management app for PLWH. The formative research resulted in identification of the following functional requirements of a mHealth app for self-management: (1) communication between providers and peers, (2) medication reminders, (3) medication log, (4) lab reports, (5) pharmacy information, (6) nutrition and fitness, (7) resources (eg, social services, substance use, video testimonials), (8) settings, and (9) search function. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct an ecological review of the existing apps for PLWH and to compare the functionality of existing apps with the app specifications identified in our formative work. METHODS: We searched two mobile app stores (Google Play and iTunes) and found a total of 5606 apps. We reviewed the apps, narrowed our search terms, and found a total of 112 apps. Of these, we excluded 97 (86.6%) apps that were either not in English (10/112, 8.9%), not HIV focused (32/112, 28.9%), or focused only on HIV prevention (2/112, 7.8%); targeted health care providers (26/112, 23.2%); provided information only on conference schedules and events (7/112, 6.3%), fundraisers (7/112, 6.3%), specific clinics (7/112, 6.3%), international or narrow local resources (3/112, 2.7%); or were identified in the first search but were no longer on the market at the next review (4/112, 3.6%). The 15 apps meeting inclusion criteria were then evaluated for inclusion of the nine functionalities identified in our earlier work. RESULTS: Of the 15 apps that we included in our final review, none had all of the functionalities that were identified in our formative work. The apps that we identified included the following functionalities: communication with providers and/or peers (4/15, 27%), medication reminders (6/15, 40%), medication logs (7/15, 47%), lab reports (5/15, 33%), pharmacy information (4/15, 27%), resources (7/15, 47%), settings (11/15, 73%), and search function (6/15, 40%). No apps included nutrition or fitness information. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there are only a small number of apps that have been designed for PLWH to manage their health. Of the apps that are currently available, none have all of the desired functionalities identified by PLWH and experts in our formative research. Findings from this work elucidate the need to develop and evaluate mobile apps that meet PLWH's desired functional specifications.

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/mhealth.4882

Cites

43 of 43 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 iterative UCD process begins with a needs assessment of both the end user and the content experts, including interviews and focus groups.

    “The iterative process begins with a needs assessment of both the end user and the content experts, including interviews and focus groups [19,23,44,47].”

    From Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach (2024) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Methods > App Design Process section (page not provided) says the study began with focus groups of end users and HIV care providers to identify desired app content and features, followed by iterative design and testing. It does not report interviews as part of that initial assessment or establish this sequence as a rule for all UCD processes. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The proposed solution, endorsed by the World Health Organization and International Standards Organization, is to use UCD, bringing the end user and content experts together with UX designers to co-design an mHealth app.

    “The proposed solution, endorsed by the World Health Organization, [22] and International Standards Organization [42], is to use UCD, bringing the end user and content experts together with UX designers to co-design an mHealth app [23,43,44].”

    From Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach (2024) · cites this paper as [44]

  • Poor usability of mHealth apps will lead to less common use.

    “The usability of mHealth apps is important [10,11] because those with poor usability will be less commonly used [12,13].”

    From Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [12]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [9]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2014 2015-09-08 HIV among African Americans http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/racialEthnic/aa/facts/ 6bOdyHsXQ PMC5310133 26301621
  2. [58]Jahns RG Houck P Mobile Health Market Report 2013-2017: The Commercialization of mHealth Applications (Vol. 3) 2013 03 04 2015-09-12 Berlin, Germany research2guidance http://www.research2guidance.com/shop/index.php/downloadable/download/sample/sample_id/262/ 6bV3BRrXv
  3. [63]Deeks SG Lewin SR Havlir DV The end of AIDS: HIV infection as a chronic disease Lancet 2013 11 2 382 9903 1525 1533 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61809-7 24152939 S0140-6736(13)61809-7 24152939 PMC4058441 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schnall, R., Mosley, J. P., Iribarren, S. J., Bakken, S., Carballo-Diéguez, A., & Brown III, W.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Schnall, Rebecca
ORCID
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2015-09-18
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
e91
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/mhealth.4882
PMC
PMC4704937
OpenAlex
W1625437550
Cited by
89
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3
FWCI
15.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P30MH043520)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (T32NR014205)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (T15LM007079)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
HIV, mobile health apps, self-management, user-centered design, app functionality, medication reminders, peer support, health information sources, app reviews, participatory design, usability evaluation, functional requirements, digital health equity, health disparities, social determinants of health, health literacy

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