JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Digital health tools have demonstrated promise for treating and self-managing chronic diseases while also serving as an important medium for reducing the workload of healthcare professionals and enhancing quality of care. However, these tools often merely undergo large-scale testing or enter the market without undergoing rigorous user experience analysis in the early stages of development, leading to frequent instances of low usage or failure.

Objective:

This study aimed to assess the usability of and satisfaction with a mobile app designed for the clinical monitoring of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation at home.

Methods:

This study employed a mixed methods approach, focusing on two key stakeholders - patients and healthcare professionals - with direct involvement in three phases: (i) design of mobile app mockups, (ii) development of a usability test for the two groups, and (iii) evaluation of satisfaction regarding the usability of the app. Participants were selected through non-probability convenience sampling and divided into two groups: healthcare professionals (n = 12) and patients (n = 18). Each participant was provided with a tablet containing mockup designs, and usability tests were conducted through interviews. Audio recordings of the participants were transcribed anonymously and analyzed using NVivo12.0 software, with the focus being on mockup characteristics and usability test fragments. Task difficulty was assessed on a scale from 1 (very easy) to 5 (very difficult); task non-completion was considered a critical mistake. Satisfaction with usability testing was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).

Results:

Perceptions of app difficulty varied significantly between the two groups of participants; while 66.7% of healthcare professionals described most tasks as "very easy", only 22.2% of patients thought this was the case. Note that no participants made critical mistakes or withdrew from the experiment during the trial. In terms of usability variables, both groups reported high satisfaction levels. On average, the healthcare professionals completed their assigned tasks in approximately 20 minutes, whereas the patients required around 30 minutes to complete the patient-specific tasks.

Conclusions:

For most healthcare professionals, the application was intuitive and easy to use; however, for most patients, operating the app alone and navigating tablet interfaces were challenging. Nevertheless, both groups reported high satisfaction levels in usability surveys. The patients expressed willingness to learn and would recommend the app to others. These positive usability evaluation outcomes, derived from satisfaction surveys and qualitative data analysis, contribute to a deeper understanding of the usage patterns of mobile healthcare applications. Additionally, with design adjustments, these applications have the potential for enhanced utilization in home care settings. Clinical Trial: IRB NO. 202200070B0