• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

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

S. Jovičić, J. Siodmiak, MD. Alcorta, M. Kittel, W. Oosterhuis, KM. Aakre, P. Jørgensen, V. Palicka, M. Kutt, M. Anttonen, MG. Velizarova, J. Marc

. 2021 ; 59 (4) : 693-699. [pub] 20201123

Jazyk angličtina Země Německo

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22012587

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.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22012587
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220506130600.0
007      
ta
008      
220425s2021 gw f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1515/cclm-2020-0869 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)33554583
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a gw
100    1_
$a Jovičić, Snežana $u Center for Medical Biochemistry, Clinical Center of Serbia, and Department for Medical Biochemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
245    10
$a Quality benchmarking of smartphone laboratory medicine applications: comparison of laboratory medicine specialists' and non-laboratory medicine professionals' evaluation / $c S. Jovičić, J. Siodmiak, MD. Alcorta, M. Kittel, W. Oosterhuis, KM. Aakre, P. Jørgensen, V. Palicka, M. Kutt, M. Anttonen, MG. Velizarova, J. Marc
520    9_
$a 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 assessm $a 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 lab $a 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.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a benchmarking $7 D019985
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a laboratoře $7 D007753
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    12
$a mobilní aplikace $7 D063731
650    _2
$a chytrý telefon $7 D000068997
650    12
$a telemedicína $7 D017216
650    _2
$a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Siodmiak, Joanna $u Department for Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Pharmacy, Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Bydgoszcz, Poland
700    1_
$a Alcorta, Marta Duque $u Department of Laboratory Medicine, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
700    1_
$a Kittel, Maximillian $u Institute for Clinical Chemistry, University of Medicine, Mannheim, Germany
700    1_
$a Oosterhuis, Wytze $u Department of Clinical Chemistry, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen-Sittard, The Netherlands
700    1_
$a Aakre, Kristin Moberg $u 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
700    1_
$a Jørgensen, Per $u Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
700    1_
$a Palicka, Vladimir $u Institute for Clinical Biochemistry and Diagnostics, University Hospital Hradec Kralove and School of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000172361647 $7 jn99240000830
700    1_
$a Kutt, Marge $u Laboratory of Diagnostics Division, North Estonia Medical Centre Foundation, Talinn, Estonia
700    1_
$a Anttonen, Mikko $u Department of Clinical Chemistry, University of Helsinki, and HUS Diagnostic Center, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
700    1_
$a Velizarova, Mileva Georgieva $u Department of Clinical Laboratory and Clinical Immunology, Medical Faculty, Medical University of Sofia, Alexander University Hospital, Sofia, Bulgaria
700    1_
$a Marc, Jania $u University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ljubljana, Slovenia
773    0_
$w MED00010886 $t Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine $x 1437-4331 $g Roč. 59, č. 4 (2021), s. 693-699
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33554583 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220425 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220506130552 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1789982 $s 1163788
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 59 $c 4 $d 693-699 $e 20201123 $i 1437-4331 $m Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine $n Clin Chem Lab Med $x MED00010886
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220425

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

    Možnosti archivace