Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Apr 15;7(4):e10216.
doi: 10.2196/10216.

A Mobile Web App to Improve Health Screening Uptake in Men (ScreenMen): Utility and Usability Evaluation Study

Affiliations

A Mobile Web App to Improve Health Screening Uptake in Men (ScreenMen): Utility and Usability Evaluation Study

Chin Hai Teo et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. .

Abstract

Background: Globally, the uptake of health screening is suboptimal, especially in men and those of younger age. In view of the increasing internet access and mobile phone ownership, ScreenMen, a mobile Web app, was developed to improve health screening uptake in men.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the utility and usability of ScreenMen.

Methods: This study used both qualitative and quantitative methods. Healthy men working in a banking institution were recruited to participate in this study. They were purposively sampled according to job position, age, education level, and screening status. Men were asked to use ScreenMen independently while the screen activities were being recorded. Once completed, retrospective think aloud with playback was conducted with men to obtain their feedback. They were asked to answer the System Usability Scale (SUS). Intention to undergo screening pre- and postintervention was also measured. Qualitative data were analyzed using a framework approach followed by thematic analysis. For quantitative data, the mean SUS score was calculated and change in intention to screening was analyzed using McNemar test.

Results: In total, 24 men participated in this study. On the basis of the qualitative data, men found ScreenMen useful as they could learn more about their health risks and screening. They found ScreenMen convenient to use, which might trigger men to undergo screening. In terms of usability, men thought that ScreenMen was user-friendly and easy to understand. The key revision done on utility was the addition of a reminder function, whereas for usability, the revisions done were in terms of attracting and gaining users' trust, improving learnability, and making ScreenMen usable to all types of users. To attract men to use it, ScreenMen was introduced to users in terms of improving health instead of going for screening. Another important revision made was emphasizing the screening tests the users do not need, instead of just informing them about the screening tests they need. A Quick Assessment Mode was also added for users with limited attention span. The quantitative data showed that 8 out of 23 men (35%) planned to attend screening earlier than intended after using the ScreenMen. Furthermore, 4 out of 12 (33%) men who were in the precontemplation stage changed to either contemplation or preparation stage after using ScreenMen with P=.13. In terms of usability, the mean SUS score of 76.4 (SD 7.72) indicated that ScreenMen had good usability.

Conclusions: This study showed that ScreenMen was acceptable to men in terms of its utility and usability. The preliminary data suggested that ScreenMen might increase men's intention to undergo screening. This paper also presented key lessons learned from the beta testing, which is useful for public health experts and researchers when developing a user-centered mobile Web app.

Keywords: eHealth; health behavior; internet; mHealth; mass screening; men’s health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The home page of ScreenMen before and after revision.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The menus of ScreenMen before and after revision.
Figure 3
Figure 3
User’s list of screening recommendation without and with emphasis of not recommended screening.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The newly added section to encourage users to avoid unnecessary screening.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Options of consultation or quick mode for health assessment.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. GSM. 2018. [2018-03-16]. The Mobile Economy 2018 https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/The-Mobile... .
    1. van den Berg MH, Schoones JW, Vliet VT. Internet-based physical activity interventions: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2007;9(3):e26. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9.3.e26. http://www.jmir.org/2007/3/e26/ v9i3e26 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wantland DJ, Portillo CJ, Holzemer WL, Slaughter R, McGhee EM. The effectiveness of web-based vs non-web-based interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. J Med Internet Res. 2004 Nov 10;6(4):e40. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.4.e40. http://www.jmir.org/2004/4/e40/ v6e40 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fridriksdottir N, Gunnarsdottir S, Zoëga S, Ingadottir B, Hafsteinsdottir EJ. Effects of web-based interventions on cancer patients' symptoms: review of randomized trials. Support Care Cancer. 2018 Feb;26(2):337–51. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3882-6.10.1007/s00520-017-3882-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Välimäki M, Anttila K, Anttila M, Lahti M. Web-based interventions supporting adolescents and young people with depressive symptoms: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Dec 8;5(12):e180. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.8624. http://mhealth.jmir.org/2017/12/e180/ v5i12e180 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources