The most used questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction, usability, acceptance, and quality outcomes of mobile health

被引:80
作者
Hajesmaeel-Gohari, Sadrieh [1 ]
Khordastan, Firoozeh [2 ]
Fatehi, Farhad [3 ,4 ]
Samzadeh, Hamidreza [5 ]
Bahaadinbeigy, Kambiz [6 ]
机构
[1] Kerman Univ Med Sci, Med Informat Res Ctr, Inst Futures Studies Hlth, Kerman, Iran
[2] Mashhad Univ Med Sci, Fac Med, Dept Med Informat, Mashhad, Razavi Khorasan, Iran
[3] Univ Queensland, Ctr Hlth Serv Res, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[4] Monash Univ, Sch Psychol Sci, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[5] Kerman Univ Med Sci, Fac Management & Med Informat Sci, Dept Hlth Informat Sci, Kerman, Iran
[6] Kerman Univ Med Sci, Gastroenterol & Hepatol Res Ctr, Inst Basic & Clin Physiol Sci, Kerman, Iran
关键词
Mobile health; Questionnaire; Evaluation;
D O I
10.1186/s12911-022-01764-2
中图分类号
R-058 [];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Various questionnaires are used for evaluating satisfaction, usability, acceptance, and quality outcomes of mobile health (mHealth) services. Using the best one to meet the needs of an mHealth study is a challenge for researchers. Therefore, this study aimed to review and determine the frequently used questionnaires for evaluating the mentioned outcomes of mHealth services. Methods The PubMed database was searched for conducting this review in April 2021. Papers that used a referenced questionnaire to evaluate the satisfaction, usability, acceptance, or quality outcomes of mHealth were included. The first author's name, year of publication, evaluation outcome, and evaluation questionnaire were extracted from relevant papers. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results In total, 247 papers were included in the study. Questionnaires were used for usability (40%), quality (34.5%), acceptance (8.5%), and satisfaction (4%) outcomes, respectively. System usability scale (36.5%), mobile application rating scale (35.5%), post study system usability questionnaire (6%), user mobile application rating scale (5%), technology acceptance model (4.5%), computer system usability questionnaire (2.5%), net promoter score (2%), health information technology usability evaluation scale (2%), the usefulness, satisfaction, and ease of use (1.5%), client satisfaction questionnaire (1.5%), unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (1.5%), questionnaire for user interaction satisfaction (1%), user experience questionnaire (1%), and after-scenario questionnaire (1%) were the most used questionnaires, respectively. Conclusion Despite the existence of special questionnaires for evaluating several outcomes of mHealth, general questionnaires with fewer items and higher reliability have been used more frequently. Researchers should pay more attention to questionnaires with a goal-based design.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]  
Alanzi Turki, 2016, JMIR Res Protoc, V5, pe93, DOI 10.2196/resprot.4348
[2]   Technology Acceptance Models in ealth nformatics: TAM and UTAUT [J].
Ammenwerth E. .
Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 2019, 263 :64-71
[3]  
[Anonymous], ISO924111
[4]  
Ansaar MZ, 2020, 2020 34TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION NETWORKING (ICOIN 2020), P70, DOI [10.1109/ICOIN48656.2020.9016509, 10.1109/icoin48656.2020.9016509]
[5]   A Patient-Oriented App (ThessHF) to Improve Self-Care Quality in Heart Failure: From Evidence-Based Design to Pilot Study [J].
Bakogiannis, Constantinos ;
Tsarouchas, Anastasios ;
Mouselimis, Dimitrios ;
Lazaridis, Charalampos ;
Theofillogianakos, Efstratios K. ;
Billis, Antonios ;
Tzikas, Stergios ;
Fragakis, Nikolaos ;
Bamidis, Panagiotis D. ;
Papadopoulos, Christodoulos E. ;
Vassilikos, Vassilios P. .
JMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH, 2021, 9 (04)
[6]  
Brooke John., 1996, Usability evaluation in industry, V189, P4
[7]  
Cambridge Dictionary-Cambridge University Press, 2020, ACCEPTANCE
[8]  
Chin J. P., 1988, P SIGCHI C HUMAN FAC, P213, DOI DOI 10.1145/57167.57203
[10]   Feasibility and impact study of a reward-based mobile application to improve adolescents' snacking habits [J].
De Cock, Nathalie ;
Van Lippevelde, Wendy ;
Vangeel, Jolien ;
Notebaert, Melissa ;
Beullens, Kathleen ;
Eggermont, Steven ;
Deforche, Benedicte ;
Maes, Lea ;
Goossens, Lien ;
Verbeken, Sandra ;
Moens, Ellen ;
Vervoort, Leentje ;
Braet, Caroline ;
Huybregts, Lieven ;
Kolsteren, Patrick ;
Van Camp, John ;
Lachat, Carl .
PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION, 2018, 21 (12) :2329-2344