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

Author:

Jovičić Snežana1,Siodmiak Joanna2,Alcorta Marta Duque3,Kittel Maximillian4,Oosterhuis Wytze5,Aakre Kristin Moberg6,Jørgensen Per7,Palicka Vladimir8ORCID,Kutt Marge9,Anttonen Mikko10,Velizarova Mileva Georgieva11,Marc Jania12,

Affiliation:

1. Center for Medical Biochemistry, Clinical Center of Serbia, and Department for Medical Biochemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy , University of Belgrade , Belgrade , Serbia

2. Department for Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Pharmacy, Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz , Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun , Bydgoszcz , Poland

3. Department of Laboratory Medicine , La Paz University Hospital , Madrid , Spain

4. Institute for Clinical Chemistry , University of Medicine , Mannheim , Germany

5. Department of Clinical Chemistry , Zuyderland Medical Center , Heerlen-Sittard , The Netherlands

6. Department of Medical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; and Department of Heart Disease , Haukeland University Hospital , Bergen , Norway

7. Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital , Copenhagen , Denmark

8. Institute for Clinical Biochemistry and Diagnostics , University Hospital Hradec Kralove and School of Medicine, Charles University , Prague , Czech Republic

9. Laboratory of Diagnostics Division , North Estonia Medical Centre Foundation , Talinn , Estonia

10. Department of Clinical Chemistry , University of Helsinki, and HUS Diagnostic Center, Helsinki University Hospital , Helsinki , Finland

11. Department of Clinical Laboratory and Clinical Immunology , Medical Faculty, Medical University of Sofia, Alexander University Hospital , Sofia , Bulgaria

12. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy , Ljubljana , Slovenia

Abstract

Abstract 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<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’ own laboratory test results; understandable terminology; easy to use; appropriate graphic design, and trustworthy information. Conclusions NLMP’ 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.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Biochemistry (medical),Clinical Biochemistry,General Medicine

Reference15 articles.

1. Bhavnani, SP, Narula, J, Sengupta, PP. Mobile technology and the digitization of healthcare. Eur Heart J 2016;37:1428–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv770.

2. Aungst, TD, Clauson, KA, Misra, S, Lewis, TL, Husain, I. How to identify, assess and utilize mobile medical applications in clinical practice. Int J Clin Pract 2014;68:155–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12375.

3. mHealth Developer Economics 3rd report – Connectivity in digital health. Research2Guidance; 2018. Available from: www.research2guidance.com.

4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Policy for device software functions and mobile medical applications guidance for industry and Food and Drug administration staff; 2019. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/policy-device-software-functions-and-mobile-medical-applications [Accessed 16 November 2019].

5. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European parliament and of the council of 5 april 2017 on medical devices, amending directive 2001/83/EC, regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing council directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union, 5.5.2017. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0745 [Accessed 16 Nov 2019].

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3