Mobile applications for diabetics: a systematic review and expert-based usability evaluation considering the special requirements of diabetes patients age 50 years or older

Madlen Arnhold, Mandy Quade, Wilhelm Kirch, Madlen Arnhold, Mandy Quade, Wilhelm Kirch

Abstract

Background: A multitude of mhealth (mobile health) apps have been developed in recent years to support effective self-management of patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 or 2.

Objective: We carried out a systematic review of all currently available diabetes apps for the operating systems iOS and Android. We considered the number of newly released diabetes apps, range of functions, target user groups, languages, acquisition costs, user ratings, available interfaces, and the connection between acquisition costs and user ratings. Additionally, we examined whether the available applications serve the special needs of diabetes patients aged 50 or older by performing an expert-based usability evaluation.

Methods: We identified relevant keywords, comparative categories, and their specifications. Subsequently, we performed the app review based on the information given in the Google Play Store, the Apple App Store, and the apps themselves. In addition, we carried out an expert-based usability evaluation based on a representative 10% sample of diabetes apps.

Results: In total, we analyzed 656 apps finding that 355 (54.1%) offered just one function and 348 (53.0%) provided a documentation function. The dominating app language was English (85.4%, 560/656), patients represented the main user group (96.0%, 630/656), and the analysis of the costs revealed a trend toward free apps (53.7%, 352/656). The median price of paid apps was €1.90. The average user rating was 3.6 stars (maximum 5). Our analyses indicated no clear differences in the user rating between free and paid apps. Only 30 (4.6%) of the 656 available diabetes apps offered an interface to a measurement device. We evaluated 66 apps within the usability evaluation. On average, apps were rated best regarding the criterion "comprehensibility" (4.0 out of 5.0), while showing a lack of "fault tolerance" (2.8 out of 5.0). Of the 66 apps, 48 (72.7%) offered the ability to read the screen content aloud. The number of functions was significantly negative correlated with usability. The presence of documentation and analysis functions reduced the usability score significantly by 0.36 and 0.21 points.

Conclusions: A vast number of diabetes apps already exist, but the majority offer similar functionalities and combine only one to two functions in one app. Patients and physicians alike should be involved in the app development process to a greater extent. We expect that the data transmission of health parameters to physicians will gain more importance in future applications. The usability of diabetes apps for patients aged 50 or older was moderate to good. But this result applied mainly to apps offering a small range of functions. Multifunctional apps performed considerably worse in terms of usability. Moreover, the presence of a documentation or analysis function resulted in significantly lower usability scores. The operability of accessibility features for diabetes apps was quite limited, except for the feature "screen reader".

Keywords: apps; diabetes mellitus; elderly; expert review; mHealth; market analysis; mobile applications; mobile health; systematic review; usability test.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Annual release figures for diabetes apps.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Price distribution of paid diabetes apps available as of April 2013.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Range of functions of diabetes apps available as of April 2013.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Distribution of user rating differentiated by acquisition costs as of April 2013.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Glucose meters with automated transmission of blood glucose values to mobile devices.

References

    1. Ingraham N. Apple: 900,000 apps in the App Store, 375,000 iPad-optimized, 28 million copies of mountain lion sold. 2013. [2013-08-30]. .
    1. MHealth Watch Mobile health care apps growing fast in number. 2013. [2013-09-19].
    1. Martínez-Pérez B, de la Torre-Díez I, López-Coronado M. Mobile health applications for the most prevalent conditions by the World Health Organization: review and analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(6):e120. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2600.
    1. Cafazzo JA, Casselman M, Hamming N, Katzman DK, Palmert MR. Design of an mHealth app for the self-management of adolescent type 1 diabetes: a pilot study. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(3):e70. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2058.
    1. Eng DS, Lee JM. The promise and peril of mobile health applications for diabetes and endocrinology. Pediatr Diabetes. 2013 Jun;14(4):231–8. doi: 10.1111/pedi.12034.
    1. Chomutare T, Fernandez-Luque L, Arsand E, Hartvigsen G. Features of mobile diabetes applications: review of the literature and analysis of current applications compared against evidence-based guidelines. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(3):e65. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1874.
    1. Lehnert H, Wittchen HU, Pittrow D, Bramlage P, Kirch W, Böhler S, Höfler M, Ritz E. Prevalence and pharmacotherapy of diabetes mellitus in primary care. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2005 Feb 18;130(7):323–8. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-863050.
    1. Kirch W. Encyclopedia of Public Health: Volume 1: A - H Volume 2: I - Z. New York: Springer; 2008.
    1. Du Y, Heidemann C, Scheidt-Nave C, Robert-Koch-Institut Diabetes mellitus in Deutschland. 2011. [2013-09-02]. .
    1. International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas. 2013. [2013-08-30]. .
    1. Holzinger A, Searle G, Nischelwitzer A. On some aspects of improving mobile applications for the elderly. In: Stephanidis C, editor. UAHCI'07 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Universal Acess in Human Computer Interaction. Coping with Diversity. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2007. pp. 923–932.
    1. Lorenz A, Oppermann R, Zahl L, Mielke D. Personalized mobile health monitoring for elderly. In: Cheok AD, Chittaro L, editors. MobileHCI ’07 Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. New York: ACM; 2007. p. 297-304.
    1. Mallenius S, Rossi M, Tuunainen VK. Factors affecting the adoption and use of mobile devices and services by elderly people – results from a pilot study. 2010. .
    1. Lorenz A, Oppermann R. Mobile health monitoring for the elderly: Designing for diversity. Pervasive and Mobile Computing. 2009 Oct;5(5):478–495. doi: 10.1016/j.pmcj.2008.09.010.
    1. Steele R, Lo A, Secombe C, Wong YK. Elderly persons' perception and acceptance of using wireless sensor networks to assist healthcare. Int J Med Inform. 2009 Dec;78(12):788–801. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.08.001.
    1. Demidowich AP, Lu K, Tamler R, Bloomgarden Z. An evaluation of diabetes self-management applications for Android smartphones. J Telemed Telecare. 2012 Jun;18(4):235–8. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2012.111002.
    1. Garcia E, Martin C, Garcia A, Harrison R, Flood D. Systematic analysis of mobile diabetes management applications on different platforms. In: Holzinger A, Simonic KM, editors. Information Quality in e-Health. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. pp. 379–96.
    1. Sarodnick F, Brau H. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber; 2011. Methoden der Usability Evaluation: Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen und praktische Anwendungen. 2nd ed.
    1. Nielsen J. Usability engineering. San Francisco, Calif: Morgan Kaufmann; 1993.
    1. Barnum CM. Usability testing essentials: ready, set...test! San Francisco, Calif: Morgan Kaufmann; 2011.
    1. Gondy L. Designing user studies in informatics. London: Springer; 2011.
    1. Abascal J, Arrue M, Fajardo I, Garay N. An expert-based usability evaluation of the EvalAccess web service. In: Navarro-Prieto R, Vidal JL, editors. HCI related papers of Interacción 2004. Dordrecht: Springer; 2006. pp. 1–18.
    1. Lee YS. Older adults’ user experience with mobile phones: identification of user clusters and user requirements. 2007. [2014-02-07]. .
    1. Deutscher Bundestag Sechster Bericht zur Lage der älteren Generation in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland - Altersbilder in der Gesellschaft. 2010. [2014-02-07]. .
    1. Caprani N, O'Connor NE, Gurrin C. Touch screens for the older user. 2012. [2014-02-07]. .
    1. DIN-Fachbericht 131:2003 . Leitlinien für Normungsgremien zur Berücksichtigung der Bedürfnisse von älteren Menschen und von Menschen mit Behinderungen; Deutsche und englische Fassung des CEN/CENELEC-Leitfadens 6. Berlin: Beuth Verlag; 2003.
    1. Schmid A, Dörfler I, Dany F, Böpple O. Analyse der Akzeptanzkriterien für mobile Anwendungen im Bereich Gesundheit in der Zielgruppe 50+ In: Shire KA, Leimeister JM, editors. Technologiegestützte Dienstleistungsinnovation der Gesundheitswirtschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler; 2012. pp. 57–82.
    1. Renaud K, van Biljon J. Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly : a qualitative study. In: Navarro-Prieto R, Vidal JL, editors. SAICSIT '08 Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries: Riding the Wave of Technology. New York: ACM; 2008. pp. 210–219.
    1. Banse M. Softwareergonomische Optimierung Touchscreen basierter Mensch-Computer-Interaktion. 2008. [2014-02-07].
    1. DIN EN ISO 9241-110:2008-09 . Ergonomie der Mensch-System-Interaktion - Teil 110: Grundsätze der Dialoggestaltung. Deutsche Fassung EN ISO 9241-110:2006. Berlin: Beuth Verlag; 2008.
    1. Tuomilehto J, Lindström J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Hämäläinen H, Ilanne-Parikka P, Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi S, Laakso M, Louheranta A, Rastas M, Salminen V, Uusitupa M, Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study Group Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med. 2001 May 3;344(18):1343–50. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200105033441801.
    1. Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) Research Group The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP): description of lifestyle intervention. Diabetes Care. 2002 Dec;25(12):2165–71.
    1. Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) Research Group. Knowler WC, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Christophi CA, Hoffman HJ, Brenneman AT, Brown-Friday JO, Goldberg R, Venditti E, Nathan DM. 10-year follow-up of diabetes incidence and weight loss in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet. 2009 Nov 14;374(9702):1677–86. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61457-4.
    1. iMedical Apps. 2013. [2013-11-11].
    1. JMIR mHealth. 2013. .
    1. HealthOn. 2013. [2013-12-10].
    1. Klonoff DC. The current status of mHealth for diabetes: will it be the next big thing? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013 May;7(3):749–58.
    1. Nuffield Council on Bioethics . Medical profiling and online medicine: the ethics of 'personalised healthcare' in a consumer age. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2010.
    1. Ascher M. Telemedicine in diabetes care. 2011. [2013-09-02]. .
    1. VDE Initiative Mikromedizin VDE-Positionspapier Telemonitoring zur Prävention von Diabetes-Erkrankungen. 2008. [2014-04-01]. .
    1. World Health Organization . Telemedicine: opportunities and developments in member states: report on the Second Global Survey on eHealth 2009. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
    1. El-Gayar O, Timsina P, Nawar N, Eid W. Mobile applications for diabetes self-management: status and potential. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(1):247–62.
    1. BodyTel Europe GmbH Glucotel. 2013. [2013-08-30]. .
    1. Sanofi Diabetes iBGStar. 2013. [2013-08-30].
    1. Holtz B, Lauckner C. Diabetes management via mobile phones: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health. 2012 Apr;18(3):175–84. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2011.0119.
    1. Free C, Phillips G, Felix L, Galli L, Patel V, Edwards P. The effectiveness of M-health technologies for improving health and health services: a systematic review protocol. BMC Res Notes. 2010;3:250. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-250.
    1. Wittchen HU, Group DS. Diabetes in Deutschland. DETECT: Eine bundesweite Studie in 3.500 Hausarztpraxen und 55.000 Patienten. 2005. [2014-02-07]. .
    1. Online Publishers Association A portrait of today’s smartphone user. 2012. [2014-02-07]. .
    1. Nielsen J. Usability inspection. In: Plaisant C, editor. CHI ’94 Conference Companion, Human Factors in Computing Systems, Celebrating Interdependence. New York, NY: ACM Press; 1994. pp. 413–4.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere