Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41480622›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2026

Usability Evaluation of the Karafs Application: A Qualitative Study Using the Think-Aloud Method.

Fatemeh Bohlouly, Azam Kheirdoust, Kosar Ghaddaripouri, Reza Sheibani, Mohammad Reza Mazaheri Habibi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Fatemeh BohloulyDepartment of Health Information Technology Varastegan Institute for Medical Sciences Mashhad Iran.
Azam KheirdoustDepartment of Medical Informatics, School of Medicine Mashhad University of Medical Sciences Mashhad Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1593-1900
Kosar GhaddaripouriDepartment of Health Information Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5817-9945
Reza SheibaniDepartment of Computer Engineering Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University Mashhad Iran.
Mohammad Reza Mazaheri HabibiDepartment of Health Information Technology Varastegan Institute for Medical Sciences Mashhad Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8096-2530

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: The Karafs application, a popular mobile health tool in Iran with nearly 5 million users, supports personalized diet plans, healthy cooking, and sports training. This study aimed to evaluate the usability of the Karafs application using the think-aloud method to identify user interaction challenges and enhance its effectiveness. Methods: Fifteen participants (2 men, 13 women; mean age 22 years) evaluated the Karafs application using the think-aloud method. Usability problems were identified, categorized, and assessed for severity. The evaluation process was analyzed, with an average duration of 10.58 ± 3.46 min. Results: Multiple usability issues were identified, primarily related to unclear system messages and navigation challenges. The severity of problems was classified, with most being minor but impacting user efficiency. Conclusion: The think-aloud method effectively identified usability issues in the Karafs application, providing insights for improving user experience. Addressing these issues can enhance the application's functionality and support healthier lifestyle choices.

Indexed as

health information systemsKarafs applicationthink‐aloud methodusability evaluation

Identifiers

PMID41480622
PMCPMC12755223

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.