The Implementation and Acceptability of a Combined Mobile Application with a COVID-19 at-Home Test Kit.

Introduction: Testing facilities for COVID-19 were stood up around the country during the pandemic, but could not handle the demand. This study aimed to combine a mobile application (App) with an at-home test kit to facilitate home-based testing. Methods: After integrating an App with an at-home testing service, we measured the time between sample collection and notification of results. We recruited 92 volunteers to utilize the platform. Results: Sixty-one percent (55/92) responded to the survey. Median sample collection-to-result time was 2.2 days (IQR = 1.3-3.2). Eighty-two percent (45/55) found the self-test kit and App easy to use. Eighty-four percent agreed that the combined solution is an acceptable way to receive health care services. Discussion: Decreasing testing time and providing timely test results improve care access and decrease the risk of infection. Combining a tailored App with an at-home testing service is a feasible solution to reaching that goal.

An Analysis of US Academic Medical Center Websites: Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations are tasked with providing web-based health resources and information. Usability refers to the ease of user experience on a website. In this study, we conducted a usability analysis of academic medical centers in the United States, which, to the best of our knowledge, has not been previously carried out. OBJECTIVE: The primary aims of the study were to the following: (1) adapt a preexisting usability scoring methodology to academic medical centers; (2) apply and test this methodology on a sample set of academic medical center websites; and (3) make recommendations from these results on potential areas of improvements for our sample of academic medical center websites. METHODS: All website usability testing took place from June 1, 2020, to December 15, 2020. We replicated a methodology developed in previous literature and applied it to academic medical centers. Our sample included 73 US academic medical centers. Usability was split into four broad categories: accessibility (the ability of those with low levels of computer literacy to access and navigate the hospital's website); marketing (the ability of websites to be found through search engines and the relevance of descriptions to the links provided); content quality (grammar, frequency of information updates, material relevancy, and readability); and technology (download speed, quality of the programming code, and website infrastructure). Using these tools, we scored each website in each category. The composite of key factors in each category contributed to an overall "general usability" score for each website. An overall score was then calculated by applying a weighted percentage across all factors and was used for the final "overall usability" ranking. RESULTS: The category with the highest average score was technology, with a 0.82 (SD 0.068, SE 0.008). The lowest-performing category was content quality, with an average of 0.22 (SD 0.069, SE 0.008). As these numbers reflect weighted percentages as an integer, the higher the score, the greater the overall usability in that category. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that technology, on average, was the highest-scored variable among academic medical center websites. Because website functionality is essential to a user's experience, it is justified that academic medical centers invest in optimal website performance. The overall lowest-scored variable was content quality. A potential reason for this may be that academic medical center websites are usually larger in size, making it difficult to monitor the increased quantity of content. An easy way to improve this variable is to conduct more frequent website audits to assess readability, grammar, and relevance. Marketing is another area in which these organizations have potential for improvement. Our recommendation is that organizations utilize search engine optimization techniques to improve their online visibility and discoverability.

Website usability analysis of United States emergency medicine residencies.

OBJECTIVES: The Council of Residency Directors (CORD) in Emergency Medicine (EM) has recommended that all residency programs should conduct virtual interviews for the 2020 to 2021 application cycle due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While factors such as geographical region, city, program size, or hospital affiliation are not modifiable, EM residencies can bridge the information gap created by a lack of face-to-face interaction by representing themselves digitally. Measuring usability provides an objective method for EM residencies to improve their Web presence and effectively represent themselves to applicants. METHODS: Our sample set included 55 U.S. EM residency program websites. Using methodology replicated from previous literature on health care website usability, we divided usability into four categories for quantifiable analysis: accessibility, marketing, content quality, and technology. Analysis was performed on each website and scored in all four categories. A "general usability" score was calculated for each website using a composite of the key factors within the four categories. Using a weighted percentage across all of the factors, an overall score was calculated. RESULTS: Content quality was the overall highest scoring category (mean ± SD = 5.4, SE = 0.33). The overall lowest performing category was technology (mean ± SD = 0.8 ± 0.09, SE = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Measuring usability can help EM residency programs identify ways to improve their Web presence. To effectively promote their programs, residencies need quality content that communicates their key features. Our recommendation is for all residency programs to periodically perform website audits and apply the usability measures outlined to improve their digital presence, especially during times when face-to-face interactions will be limited.

Applying Website Rankings to Digital Health Centers in the United States to Assess Public Engagement: Website Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: As the public increasingly uses the internet to search for resources and information regarding health and medicine, it is important that health care organizations provide adequate web resources. Website usability refers to the ease of user experience on a website. In this study, we conducted usability analyses on digital health center websites. OBJECTIVE: The primary aims of this study were to (1) replicate a preexisting usability scoring methodology for digital health centers; (2) apply and test this replicated usability scoring methodology on a sample set of digital health center websites; and (3) derive recommendations from the results on potential areas of improvements for our sample of digital health center websites. METHODS: Website usability testing was conducted from March 1, 2020, to March 15, 2020. We replicated a methodology and scoring system from previous literature and applied them to digital health center websites. Our sample included 67 digital health centers that were affiliated with US universities or hospital systems. Usability was split into the following four broad categories: accessibility, marketing, content quality, and technology. Usability tools were used to score websites in each of the four categories. The composite of the key factors of each category was used to generate a general usability and overall usability score for each website. RESULTS: The category with the highest average score (6.3) was content quality. The content quality score also had the highest SD (2.18) and an SE of 0.27. The lowest performing category was technology, which had an average score of 0.9. The technology score also had the smallest SD (0.07) and an SE of 0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that content quality, on average, was the highest scoring variable among digital health center websites. As content is crucial to digital health knowledge, it is justified that digital health centers invest more resources into creating quality content. The overall lowest scoring variable was technology. Potential reasons for this finding include designated funding for servers, a lack of regulatory frameworks for social media presence and liability, and infrequent website audits. An easy approach for improving this variable is increasing website speed. Accessibility is another area that organizations can potentially improve. We recommend that these organizations perform periodic audits of their web presence with usability tools.

Can mHealth Technology Help Mitigate the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Goal: The aim of the study herein reported was to review mobile health (mHealth) technologies and explore their use to monitor and mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A Task Force was assembled by recruiting individuals with expertise in electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (ePRO), wearable sensors, and digital contact tracing technologies. Its members collected and discussed available information and summarized it in a series of reports. Results: The Task Force identified technologies that could be deployed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and would likely be suitable for future pandemics. Criteria for their evaluation were agreed upon and applied to these systems. Conclusions: mHealth technologies are viable options to monitor COVID-19 patients and be used to predict symptom escalation for earlier intervention. These technologies could also be utilized to monitor individuals who are presumed non-infected and enable prediction of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, thus facilitating the prioritization of diagnostic testing.

Comparing Characteristics of Patients Who Connect Their iPhones to an Electronic Health Records System Versus Patients Who Connect Without Personal Devices: Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: While individual access to health records has traditionally been through paper and other physical media, there has been a recent push toward digitizing this process. Direct patient access to health data through application programming interfaces (APIs) is an important part of current United States policy initiatives, and Apple has created the product "Health Records on iPhone" to leverage APIs for this purpose. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the characteristics of patients at our institution who connected their personal iPhone devices to our electronic health records (EHRs) system through "Health Records on iPhone", as compared to patients at our institution who used our patient portal but did not connect a personal device to our system. METHODS: We examined adult patients at our institution who had authorized an iPhone device to download their health data from the Partners HealthCare EHR via APIs through "Health Records on iPhone" from February 18, 2018 (the date this feature was enabled at our health system) until February 17, 2019. We compared these patients to adult patients who used our portal at least once during this period but did not authorize an iPhone device to download their data via APIs. RESULTS: Variables associated with an increased likelihood of using "Health Records on iPhone" included male gender (adjusted OR 3.36; 95% CI 3.11-3.62; P<.001) and younger age, particularly below 50 years of age. With each decade of age over 50, people were less likely to be "Health Records on iPhone" product users. Asian patients were more likely to use the product than Caucasian patients (adjusted OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16-1.51; P<.001), though there was no significant difference between African Americans and Caucasians (adjusted OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.94-1.41; P=.17). Patients who resided in higher ZIP code income quartiles were more likely to be users than those in the lowest quartile. CONCLUSIONS: Early results from the implementation of patient-facing APIs at a single institution suggest that there are opportunities for expanding these technologies to ensure all patients are aware of, and have access to, their health data on their personal devices. More work is needed on expanding these technologies to different patient populations.