TY  - JOUR
AU  - Jovičić, Snežana
AU  - Siodmiak, Joanna
AU  - Alcorta, Marta Duque
AU  - Kittel, Maximillian
AU  - Oosterhuis, Wytze
AU  - Aakre, Kristin Moberg
AU  - Jørgensen, Per
AU  - Palicka, Vladimir
AU  - Kutt, Marge
AU  - Anttonen, Mikko
AU  - Georgieva Velizarova, Mileva
AU  - Marc, Jania
PY  - 2021
UR  - https://farfar.pharmacy.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/3789
AB  - 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. 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. 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. 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.
PB  - De Gruyter Open Ltd
T2  - Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
T1  - Quality benchmarking of smartphone laboratory medicine applications: Comparison of laboratory medicine specialists' and non-laboratory medicine professionals' evaluation
DO  - 10.1515/cclm-2020-0869
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Jovičić, Snežana and Siodmiak, Joanna and Alcorta, Marta Duque and Kittel, Maximillian and Oosterhuis, Wytze and Aakre, Kristin Moberg and Jørgensen, Per and Palicka, Vladimir and Kutt, Marge and Anttonen, Mikko and Georgieva Velizarova, Mileva and Marc, Jania",
year = "2021",
abstract = "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. 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. 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. 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 = "De Gruyter Open Ltd",
journal = "Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine",
title = "Quality benchmarking of smartphone laboratory medicine applications: Comparison of laboratory medicine specialists' and non-laboratory medicine professionals' evaluation",
doi = "10.1515/cclm-2020-0869"
}

Jovičić, S., Siodmiak, J., Alcorta, M. D., Kittel, M., Oosterhuis, W., Aakre, K. M., Jørgensen, P., Palicka, V., Kutt, M., Anttonen, M., Georgieva Velizarova, M.,& Marc, J.. (2021). Quality benchmarking of smartphone laboratory medicine applications: Comparison of laboratory medicine specialists' and non-laboratory medicine professionals' evaluation. in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
De Gruyter Open Ltd..
https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0869

Jovičić S, Siodmiak J, Alcorta MD, Kittel M, Oosterhuis W, Aakre KM, Jørgensen P, Palicka V, Kutt M, Anttonen M, Georgieva Velizarova M, Marc J. Quality benchmarking of smartphone laboratory medicine applications: Comparison of laboratory medicine specialists' and non-laboratory medicine professionals' evaluation. in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. 2021;.
doi:10.1515/cclm-2020-0869 .

Jovičić, Snežana, Siodmiak, Joanna, Alcorta, Marta Duque, Kittel, Maximillian, Oosterhuis, Wytze, Aakre, Kristin Moberg, Jørgensen, Per, Palicka, Vladimir, Kutt, Marge, Anttonen, Mikko, Georgieva Velizarova, Mileva, Marc, Jania, "Quality benchmarking of smartphone laboratory medicine applications: Comparison of laboratory medicine specialists' and non-laboratory medicine professionals' evaluation" in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0869 . .