ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Involving End Users in the Development and Usability Testing of a Smartphone App Designed for Individuals With Prediabetes: Mixed-Methods Focus Group Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engagement of Users in Digital Health Applications: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Development and User-Centered Evaluation of Smart Systems for Loneliness Monitoring in Older Adults: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Technology is more likely to be used when it is designed to meet the needs of end users. To supplement the Small Steps for Big Changes diabetes prevention program, a smartphone app was developed in partnership with past Small Steps for Big Changes clientele. Usability testing is critical for the ongoing use and adoption of mobile health apps by providing insight on where appropriate adjustments and improvements need to be made to ensure user satisfaction. Objective: A focus group with 7 participants was conducted to examine the app's usability and collect feedback for future iterations. Methods: Past Small Steps for Big Changes clientele participated in a cognitive walkthrough of 8 novel tasks and completed the System Usability Scale survey. Participants were then given the option to use the app for 3 weeks before completing the User-Mobile Application Rating Scale. Results: Analysis of the cognitive walkthrough identified 26 usability problems; each was coded using a heuristic evaluation to describe usability errors. The most frequently coded errors included inappropriate progress feedback, information appearing in an illogical order, counterintuitive design, and issues with app aesthetics. A mean summary score of 66.8% (SD 18.91) was reported for the System Usability Scale, representing a marginal acceptability score and indicating that design issues needed to be resolved. A User-Mobile Application Rating Scale mean score of 3.59 (SD 0.33) was reported, implying an average acceptability rating. Conclusions: These findings identified necessary improvements in the app, ranging from minor aesthetic problems to major functionality problems. Involving end users allows the app to be tailored to the client's preferences and increases the likelihood of usage. This app aligns with Small Steps for Big Changes' program components and behavior change techniques that can improve health outcomes for future clients and allow them to self-monitor their exercise, diet, and goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.