Mobile health applications (mHealth apps) have revolutionized the way we manage our well-being and fitness. However, designing and evaluating their usability remains a significant challenge. Traditional usability models often require a finished product that has been in use for an extended period, which is not feasible for mHealth apps. Moreover, assessing these apps demands substantial efforts from various knowledge domains and prospective users.

To address this issue, we developed a novel hierarchical usability model specifically designed for mHealth app assessment. Our approach integrated the Integrated Measurement Model (IMM) and People at the Center of Mobile Application Development (PACMAD) framework to capture the key usability attributes of these apps. These attributes include efficiency, effectiveness, satisfaction, learnability, operability, aesthetics, and universality, which were further broken down into 23 corresponding sub-factors.

Our model was tested using GoogleFit and MyFitnessPal mHealth apps. The results showed that GoogleFit outperformed MyFitnessPal in usability evaluations based on our developed model. This highlights the importance of considering usability attributes when designing mobile health applications.

The implications of this study are far-reaching, as it provides a framework for mHealth app developers to make informed decisions about designing and assessing highly usable apps. By prioritizing usability attributes using mathematical models, future research can further refine and improve the evaluation process.

Key Takeaways

  • Our hierarchical model integrates IMM and PACMAD frameworks to capture key usability attributes of mHealth apps.
  • The model consists of 7 criteria and 23 sub-criteria for efficient and effective app design.
  • Efficiency, effectiveness, satisfaction, learnability, operability, aesthetics, and universality are critical usability attributes in mHealth app development.
  • GoogleFit outperformed MyFitnessPal in usability evaluations based on our developed model.
  • Future research should prioritize usability attributes using mathematical models for improved evaluation.

References

  1. Alonso-Ríos, D., Vazquez-Garcia, A., Mosqueira- Rey, E., & Moret-Bonillo, V. (2009). Usability: A critical analysis and taxonomy. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(1), 53-74.
  2. AppFutura. (2016, February 1). Everything about mHealth: Figures, best mhealth apps ranking and main players [Blog post]. Retrieved from
  3. Bass, L., & John, B. E. (2003). Linking usability to software architecture patterns through general scenarios. Journal of Systems and Software, 66(3), 187-197.
  4. Bevan N., Kirakowski J., & Maissel, J. (1991). What is usability? Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction (pp. 651-655). Stuttgart, Germany.

Note: The references provided are not rewritten but rather copied from the original article.