首页> 外文学位 >Determining usability differences between paid and free mobile health applications for cholesterol tracking.
【24h】

Determining usability differences between paid and free mobile health applications for cholesterol tracking.

机译:确定用于胆固醇跟踪的付费和免费移动医疗应用程序之间的可用性差异。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Background.;Heart disease due to high levels of cholesterol is the leading cause of death in the United States. It is therefore critical that people with heart disease or at risk for heart disease have tools that help to effectively manage cholesterol. Smartphones are portable information communication technologies that have the potential to help people manage their condition by making available software applications ("apps") that can help patients track their cholesterol throughout their activities of daily living. However, the degrees to which these cholesterol-tracking apps are usable may impact their effectiveness. A further consideration is that cholesterol tracking app usability may significantly differ according to pricing structure. I therefore set out to determine if paid and free smartphone apps differ in usability.;Methods.;The purpose of this study was to determine usability differences between paid and free smartphone apps that are designed to track cholesterol. I took multiple steps to generate a sample of cholesterol tracking apps: first I identified 153 apps in the Apple Computer, Inc., App StoreTM by searching on the keyword, "cholesterol"; I then selected a subset of 34 apps (19 paid and 15 free) based on data in seven pre-defined criteria: 1) patient-orientedness, 2) cholesterol level tracking capability, 3) star rating, 4) price, 5) app creation date, 6) app update date, and 7) and English language; from which I randomly selected 10 paid and 10 free apps. I determined usability scores for each for each app according to the Nielsen-Schneiderman Heuristic Framework, which estimates usability based on 14 criteria scored from 0 to 4 (a 0 indicates maximum usability and a 4 indicates minimal usability). To determine any usability differences, I used both descriptive and statistical comparisons including a two-tailed t-test and a Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test to determine differences with 95% confidence (alpha of .05).; Results.;My study found that when comparing the total average usability score of the paid apps and free apps, the paid app group was found to be more usable (1.44 vs. 1.64). However, not all paid apps were more usable than free apps. The free apps had better average usability scores in 4 out of the 14 usability categories. Median usability scores demonstrated an even smaller difference between paid and free apps. The paid apps had better median usability scores in 4 categories, the free apps had a better median usability scores in 2 categories, and scores were the same in the remaining 8 categories.;A 2-tailed Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test statistic for non-parametric data showed that there is no significant difference between the overall usability of paid and free apps (test statistic = 1.025, p-value of 0.3053). Similarly a 2 tailed t-test for parametric data also showed that there is no significant difference between the overall usability of paid and free apps (t-statistic --- 1.33, p-value of 0.18).;Both tests indicated the "language" variable significantly differed between paid and free apps: Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test (test statistic = 2.471, p-value = 0.0135), 2 tailed t-test (t-test statistic = 2.63, p-value = 0.017) thereby indicating that the paid.;Discussion.;This study demonstrated that except for the language variable, which indicates how easy the app is to understand, there was no significant difference in the usability of paid versus free apps. The results of this study suggest that paid apps can be better understood than free apps. When compared to the paid apps only one free app scored a zero rating (highest usability) for language.;mHealth app developers can successfully use this framework of to inform the usability of their apps. The strengths of this framework are that it is easy to follow and does require extensive resources to perform. This framework gives you defined criteria of usability for which to evaluate apps.;Conclusion.;There was no statistically significant difference between the overall usability of paid app instruction and free app instructions. The only usability criterion that was statistically significant area was language, meaning that, paid apps are easier to understand than free apps.
机译:背景:高胆固醇引起的心脏病是美国死亡的主要原因。因此,患有心脏病或患有心脏病的人拥有有助于有效管理胆固醇的工具至关重要。智能手机是便携式信息通信技术,它有潜力通过提供可用的软件应用程序(“应用程序”)来帮助人们管理自己的病情,这些软件应用程序可以帮助患者在日常生活中跟踪其胆固醇水平。但是,这些胆固醇跟踪应用程序的可用程度可能会影响其有效性。进一步考虑的是,胆固醇跟踪应用程序的可用性可能会根据定价结构而有很大差异。因此,我着手确定付费和免费智能手机应用程序的可用性是否不同。方法本研究的目的是确定旨在追踪胆固醇的付费和免费智能手机应用程序之间的可用性差异。我采取了多个步骤来生成胆固醇跟踪应用程序样本:首先,我通过搜索关键字“胆固醇”在Apple Computer,Inc.的App StoreTM中识别了153个应用程序;然后,我根据七个预先定义的标准中的数据选择了34个应用程序的子集(19个付费和15个免费):1)以患者为中心,2)胆固醇水平跟踪能力,3)星级,4)价格,5)应用程序创建日期,6)应用更新日期,7)和英语;我从中随机选择10个付费应用程序和10个免费应用程序。我根据Nielsen-Schneiderman启发式框架确定了每个应用程序的可用性得分,该框架根据从0到4的14条标准来评估可用性(0表示最大可用性,而4表示最小可用性)。为了确定任何可用性差异,我使用了描述性比较和统计比较,包括双尾t检验和Wilcoxon秩和检验,以95%的置信度确定差异(α为0.05)。结果:我的研究发现,将付费应用程序和免费应用程序的总平均可用性得分进行比较时,发现付费应用程序组的可用性更高(1.44对1.64)。但是,并非所有付费应用程序都比免费应用程序更有用。在14个可用性类别中,免费应用的平均可用性得分更高,为4个。平均可用性分数表明,付费和免费应用之间的差异甚至更小。付费应用在4个类别中的可用性中位数得分更高,免费应用在2个类别中的可用性中位数得分更高,其余8个类别的得分均相同。;针对非付费应用的2尾Wilcoxon秩和检验统计量参数数据显示,付费和免费应用的总体可用性之间没有显着差异(测试统计= 1.025,p值为0.3053)。同样,针对参数数据的2尾t检验也表明,付费和免费应用的总体可用性之间没有显着差异(t统计-1.33,p值为0.18)。两种测试均表明“语言” “付费和免费应用之间的变量存在显着差异:Wilcoxon等级和检验(检验统计= 2.471,p值= 0.0135),2尾t检验(检验t统计= 2.63,p值= 0.017),从而表明讨论:这项研究表明,除了语言变量(表明应用易于理解)之外,付费和免费应用的可用性没有显着差异。这项研究的结果表明,与免费应用程序相比,付费应用程序可以更好地理解。与付费应用程序相比,只有一个免费应用程序的语言得分为零(最高可用性)。mHealth应用程序开发人员可以成功使用此框架来告知其应用程序的可用性。该框架的优势在于易于遵循并且确实需要大量资源来执行。该框架为您定义了评估应用程序的可用性标准。结论:付费应用程序指令和免费应用程序指令的总体可用性之间在统计上没有显着差异。唯一具有统计意义的可用性标准是语言,这意味着付费应用比免费应用更易于理解。

著录项

  • 作者

    Amberson, James B.;

  • 作者单位

    Weill Medical College of Cornell University.;

  • 授予单位 Weill Medical College of Cornell University.;
  • 学科 Health Sciences Health Care Management.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2014
  • 页码 51 p.
  • 总页数 51
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:53:15

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号