Quality benchmarking of smartphone laboratory medicine applications: comparison of laboratory medicine specialists' and non-laboratory medicine professionals' evaluation

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11150%2F21%3A10428622" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11150/21:10428622 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00179906:_____/21:10428622

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=1Rb58FnTVu" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=1Rb58FnTVu</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0869" target="_blank" >10.1515/cclm-2020-0869</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Quality benchmarking of smartphone laboratory medicine applications: comparison of laboratory medicine specialists' and non-laboratory medicine professionals' evaluation

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Objectives: There are many mobile health applications (apps) now available and some that use in some way laboratory medicine data. Among them, patient-oriented are of the lowest content quality. The aim of this study was to compare the opinions of non-laboratory medicine professionals (NLMP) with those of laboratory medicine specialists (LMS) and define the benchmarks for quality assessment of laboratory medicine apps. Methods: Twenty-five volunteers from six European countries evaluated 16 selected patient-oriented apps. Participants were 20-60 years old, 44% were females, with different educational degrees, and no professional involvement in laboratory medicine. Each participant completed a questionnaire based on the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) and the System Usability Scale, as previously used for rating the app quality by LMS. The responses from the two groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlation. Results: The median total score of NLMP app evaluation was 2.73 out of 5 (IQR 0.95) compared to 3.78 (IQR 1.05) by the LMS. All scores were statistically significantly lower in the NLMP group (p&lt;0.05), except for the item Information quality (p=0.1631). The suggested benchmarks for a useful appear: increasing awareness of the importance and delivering an understanding of persons&apos; own laboratory test results; understandable terminology; easy to use; appropriate graphic design, and trustworthy information. Conclusions: NLMP&apos; evaluation confirmed the low utility of currently available laboratory medicine apps. A reliable app should contain trustworthy and understandable information. The appearance of an app should be fit for purpose and easy to use.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Quality benchmarking of smartphone laboratory medicine applications: comparison of laboratory medicine specialists' and non-laboratory medicine professionals' evaluation

Popis výsledku anglicky

Objectives: There are many mobile health applications (apps) now available and some that use in some way laboratory medicine data. Among them, patient-oriented are of the lowest content quality. The aim of this study was to compare the opinions of non-laboratory medicine professionals (NLMP) with those of laboratory medicine specialists (LMS) and define the benchmarks for quality assessment of laboratory medicine apps. Methods: Twenty-five volunteers from six European countries evaluated 16 selected patient-oriented apps. Participants were 20-60 years old, 44% were females, with different educational degrees, and no professional involvement in laboratory medicine. Each participant completed a questionnaire based on the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) and the System Usability Scale, as previously used for rating the app quality by LMS. The responses from the two groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlation. Results: The median total score of NLMP app evaluation was 2.73 out of 5 (IQR 0.95) compared to 3.78 (IQR 1.05) by the LMS. All scores were statistically significantly lower in the NLMP group (p&lt;0.05), except for the item Information quality (p=0.1631). The suggested benchmarks for a useful appear: increasing awareness of the importance and delivering an understanding of persons&apos; own laboratory test results; understandable terminology; easy to use; appropriate graphic design, and trustworthy information. Conclusions: NLMP&apos; evaluation confirmed the low utility of currently available laboratory medicine apps. A reliable app should contain trustworthy and understandable information. The appearance of an app should be fit for purpose and easy to use.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30100 - Basic medicine

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

ISSN

1434-6621

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

59

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

4

Stát vydavatele periodika

DE - Spolková republika Německo

Počet stran výsledku

7

Strana od-do

693-699

Kód UT WoS článku

000628828900020

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85100905409