Usability of Mobile Health Apps from the Patient Perspective: A Systematic Review
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Patients using mobile health (mHealth) applications across various disease categories |
| I — Intervention | Mobile health applications |
| C — Comparator | Not applicable (descriptive systematic review) |
| O — Outcomes | Usability assessment scores from patient perspective using standardized questionnaires or structured interviews |
Bottom Line
This systematic review of 146 studies demonstrates that patients generally find mHealth apps usable, with mean System Usability Scale scores (76.37) exceeding acceptability thresholds. However, the evidence base suffers from methodological limitations including lack of standardized mHealth-specific assessment tools, small sample sizes, and poor reporting transparency. While the results suggest patient acceptance of mHealth technology across diverse clinical conditions, clinicians should interpret these findings cautiously. The review highlights the need for more rigorous usability evaluation methods and larger studies to establish meaningful benchmarks. For Australian practitioners, these findings support the integration of mHealth tools in clinical practice, particularly for mental health, neurological, and chronic disease management, but emphasize the importance of selecting apps with demonstrated usability evidence and considering patient digital literacy when making recommendations.
Key Findings
Effect Size: Mean SUS score: 76.37
Primary Outcome: Patient-reported usability scores of mHealth applications
Nnt Or Sensitivity: SUS acceptability threshold: 68 (exceeded by mean score of 76.37)
Confidence Interval: Not reported
Clinical Application
High feasibility given widespread smartphone adoption, though requires consideration of digital literacy and access barriers Relevant to Australian digital health initiatives and TGA medical device regulations for software; aligns with Medicare Benefits Schedule telehealth provisions and RACGP digital health guidelines Patients across 15 disease categories, most commonly mental health, neurology, metabolic/endocrine, and oncology conditions
Abstract
Mobile Health (mHealth) apps are widely used to support care, but patient-focused usability evidence remains fragmented. We conducted a systematic review (January 2012-September 2025) of PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and Scopus to identify studies assessing usability from the patient perspective using standardized questionnaires or structured interviews. Of 490 records retrieved, 146 studies met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen disease categories were represented, most commonly mental health, neurology, metabolic/endocrine, and oncology. Overall, 24 distinct usability assessment methods were reported, and most studies relied on a single method. Among standardized instruments, the System Usability Scale (SUS) was most common (50 studies, 34.3%); the mean SUS score across these studies was 76.37, above the acceptability benchmark of 68. Overall, mHealth apps were generally rated as usable by patients, but future work should adopt mHealth-specific standardized measures, enroll larger samples, and report methods transparently to enable benchmarking and inform better app design.
References
- 1.Bosoni, P., Gasparini, G., Pe, S., Larizza, C., Quaglini, S., & Lanzola, G. (2026). Usability of Mobile Health Apps from the Patient Perspective: A Systematic Review. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI260570
Related Research
The Journal of rheumatology
Examining the Role of Wearables in Inflammatory Arthritis Care: A Narrative Literature Review
3 Aug 2026
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ChatGPT in urogynecology: Comparing large language model responses to human experts
3 Aug 2026
Sleep medicine
Concordance of wearable device sleep metrics with patient-reported sleep quality: A systematic review
3 Aug 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service