Heuristic Evaluation of a Top-Rated Diabetes Self-Management App.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usability of a top-rated diabetes app. Such apps are intended to markedly support the achievement of optimal health and financial outcomes by providing patients with substantive and continual support for self-management of their disease between periodic clinician visits. Poor usability can deter use which is especially concerning in patients with diabetes due to prevalence of the disease and impact of self-management on long-term prognosis. METHODS: A diabetes app was selected due to the prevalence and seriousness of the disease. A heuristic evaluation was then performed to collect and analyze data on the usability of the app based on Nielsen's heuristics. Pareto analysis was used to illustrate the contribution of each type of heuristic violation, augmented by a stacked bar chart illuminating associated severity. RESULTS: There were 51 heuristic violations on the opening screen, violating 6 of Nielsen's 10 heuristics. Pareto analysis revealed 29 (57%) of the heuristic violations involved a match between system and real world and 8 (16%) aesthetic and minimalist design. Severity ratings ranged from 1.0 to 4.0 (mean: 3.01) with 80% comprising a major usability problem and 6% a usability catastrophe. CONCLUSION: Studies show that people with diabetes are more likely to receive greater benefit from a diabetes app if they are easy to use. The number and severity of heuristic violations in this study suggest that the commercialization of mobile health apps may play a factor in bypassing experts in clinical informatics during the design phase of development. Usability and associated benefits received from mobile health apps can be enhanced by debugging the user interface of identified heuristic violations during design. Waiting to correct ongoing usability issues while apps are in production can result in patients disengaging from use of digital health tools engendering poorer outcomes.

Headache in the neurology clinic: a 2-year audit.

BACKGROUND: Headache is the most common reason for referral to neurology outpatient clinics in Ireland and represents approximately 30% of all new appointments. AIM: To evaluate diagnoses and outcomes of all patients newly referred with headache to a consultant neurologist at an Irish university teaching hospital over a 2-year period. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis and audit. METHODS: Data including patient demographics, red flags, investigations, diagnosis, and outcome were collected on consecutive patients newly referred with headache to a consultant neurologist's outpatient clinic over a 2-year period. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy patients with headache were seen; 75% were women with mean age of 39 years. 89.26% (241/270) were diagnosed with a primary headache disorder alone; 4.44% (12/270) with a secondary headache disorder alone; 3.33% (9/270) with both a primary and secondary headache disorders; and 2.96% (8/270) with a painful cranial neuropathy. Migraine was the most common diagnosis, frequently associated with medication overuse. Non-attendance rates were high. Although imaging abnormalities were frequently found, on no occasion was it thought to be the cause of the headache. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients referred to a neurology outpatient clinic with headache have a primary headache disorder. Alternate pathways should be considered to reduce the burden on Ireland's limited neurology resources without compromising patient safety.