J Med Syst (2015) 39:63 DOI 10.1007/s10916-015-0243-1

MOBILE SYSTEMS

Compliance of Blood Donation Apps with Mobile OS Usability Guidelines Sofia Ouhbi1 · Jos´e Luis Fern´andez-Alem´an1 · Jos´e Rivera Pozo2 · Manal El Bajta3 · Ambrosio Toval1 · Ali Idri3

Received: 28 October 2014 / Accepted: 11 March 2015 © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract The aim of this paper is to employ the guidelines of Android, iOS, Blackberry and Windows Phone to analyze the usability compliance of free blood donation (BD) apps. An analysis process based on a systematic review protocol is used to select free BD apps. An assessment is conducted

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Mobile Systems  Sofia Ouhbi

[email protected] Jos´e Luis Fern´andez-Alem´an [email protected] Ambrosio Toval [email protected] Jos´e Rivera Pozo [email protected] Manal El Bajta [email protected] Ali Idri [email protected] 1

Department of Informatics and Systems, Faculty of Computer Science, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain

2

Servicio de Hematolog´ıa y Oncolog´ıa M´edica, Hospital Universitario Morales Meseguer, Centro Regional de Hemodonaci´on, Universidad de Murcia, IMIB-Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain

3

Software Project Management research team, ENSIAS, Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco

using a questionnaire composed of 13 questions concerning the compliance of free BD apps with Android, Blackberry, iOS and Windows Phone usability guidelines. A total of 133 free BD apps have been selected from the 188 BD apps identified. Around 63 % of the free BD apps selected have a good compliance with mobile OS usability recommendations. Around 72 % of Android, 57 % of Windows Phone, 33 % of iOS and 33 % of Blackberry BD apps have a high usability score. The aspect of BD app behavior should be improved along with some style components: the use of pictures to explain ideas and the adaptation of the app to both horizontal and vertical orientations. Structure patterns should also be used to improve the structure aspect of a BD app. Usability is a quality aspect that should be improved in current BD apps. Our study provides smartphone users with a list of usable free BD apps and BD app developers with recommendations. Keywords Blood donation · Mobile application · Android · Blackberry · IOS · Windows phone · Usability

Introduction The number and popularity of mobile applications (apps) is increasing dramatically owing to the accelerating cadence of smartphone adoption. Google Play, Apple Apps Store, Blackberry App World and Windows Mobile App Store, are popular smartphone platforms which have made it easy for users to discover and download apps [1]. Furthermore, the use of these app repositories and the popularity of mobile devices have increased the apps’ diversity [2]. This also makes it more attractive for some developers to implement apps rather than complete web-based services [3, 4]. Apps

63

Page 2 of 21

which provide health care via mobile devices (m-health) have undergone rapid growth in recent years: approximately 20,000 medical iOS apps and 9,000 medical apps are available for Android alone [5]. M-health can effectively improve health care service delivery to people [6] and smartphone users are able to choose from among a diverse set of m-health apps [7, 8]. Examples of m-health apps are: mobile personal health records (mPHRs) [9, 10], apps for diabetes [11], apps for older adults [12] and apps for emergency healthcare support [13–16]. In difficult areas, m-health apps can help combat endemic and epidemic diseases [17, 18] since countries in which such diseases are widespread have to overcome the challenges related to blood safety and availability [19, 20]. Blood donation (BD) is vitally important to the correct delivery of health care [21]. Hospitals and patients in need are dependent on a constant supply of blood. The sufficiency of blood supplies is still one of the major problems of health services [22]. Many countries confront difficulties as regards ensuring a sufficient and safe blood supply [23]. This is the case of Malawi, where in 2010 the national demand for blood was 100,000 units, only 42,000 of which were collected, well below 50 % of those needed (figures provided by the Blood Transfusion Service (BTS) in England and North Wales) [24]. The insufficient supply of blood from volunteer donors means that many hospitals still need to supplement supplies from BTS with locally collected donations [25]. There is consequently a need to recruit and retain more blood donors, which has traditionally been done using methods such as brochures [26] or videos [27]. In Pakistan, a web-based information system was developed to enable users to search for, collect and donate blood [28], apps related to BD could help attract more volunteers, especially young donors [29]. There is a tremendous lack of studies on BD apps, and no studies on BD apps have been identified with the exception of one thesis [30]. Studies discussing the use of the Internet in donor recruitment have, however, been identified. Katz et al. [31] have demonstrated that computerized donor screening increases and improves the accuracy and efficiency of the BD process. Another research work [32] has demonstrated that web-based educational material can reduce anxiety and enhance BD attitudes. BD apps can be an efficient means to motivate users to give blood or to help them find eligible donors. BD apps may also enhance the loyalty rates of blood donors. Usability can be critical to the success of an app [33, 34]. Having a great usability experience while using BD apps may provide blood donors with more encouragement to keep these apps in their smartphones and maintain connections with the donor network. Many usability models exist such as ISO 9241-11 [35], ISO 13407 [36] which has been replaced with ISO 9241-210 [37], and ISO/IEC

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

9126 [38] which has been replaced with ISO/IEC 25010 [39]. Usability in ISO/IEC 9126-1 is renamed Operability in ISO/IEC 25010 and is defined as “the degree to which the software product can be understood, learned, used and attractive to the user, when used under specified conditions” [39]. The ISO/IEC 25010 standard categorizes quality-inuse attributes into three characteristics: (i) usability-in-use, (ii) flexibility-in-use, and (iii) safety-in-use. Usability-inuse is defined as “the degree to which specified users can achieve specified goals with effectiveness in use, efficiency in use and satisfaction in use in a specified context of use” [39]. Many studies have been carried out with the intention of enhancing usability within the context of mobile applications [40–42], and many models have been proposed [43, 44]. Mobile limitations such as small screen size, connectivity issues and limited input modalities have an effect on the usability of m-health apps [9, 45]. In order to mitigate these usability barriers in BD apps, guidelines for mobile devices can help developers accommodate BD apps to the principles of human interaction. The aim of this paper is to analyze the usability of free BD apps for Android, iOS, Blackberry and Windows Phone. Free BD apps were selected by means of an analysis process construction in which a systematic review approach was used as a basis to ensure the accuracy and impartiality of the process [46]. A questionnaire based on the Android Design Guidelines [47], the iOS Human Interface Guidelines [48], the BlackBerry User Interface (UI) Guidelines [49], the Design Library Guidelines for Windows Phone [50] and composed of 13 questions was developed and used to assess the compliance of the 133 apps selected. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has analyzed the usability of BD apps. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: “Method” describes the research method and protocol employed to select the free BD apps. “Results and discussion ” synthesizes the results obtained and answers the research questions (RQs). This section also discusses our finding and the limitations of this study. Finally, “Conclusion and future work” presents our conclusions and future work.

Method This section describes the method used to search for, select and assess the usability of free BD apps. Review protocol A systematic review has been used to address the search for free BD apps. This paper follows the quality reporting guidelines set out by the Preferred Reporting Items for

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) group [51]. The objective of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A review protocol was adopted in which each step of the systematic review, including eligibility criteria, was described before beginning the search for apps and the data extraction. Research questions The objective of this study is to answer the three RQs presented in Table 1. Eligibility criteria and sources Each of the apps identified has been evaluated to decide whether or not it should be included. The following inclusion criteria (IC) were used in order to identify candidate apps: IC1 IC2 IC3 IC4

BD apps Apps that have a free version Apps for human BD Apps which focus only on BD

IC1 selects those BD apps which were classified by their developers as pertaining to health category. IC2 selects free BD apps. Free apps are available to anyone. IC3 is necessary to ensure that the BD apps to be selected are for human use. Apps for pets such as cats and dogs were not considered. IC4 selects only those apps which were developed for BD and discards those that focus on general health but include a BD section in their functionality. The following exclusion criteria (EC) were applied to the candidate BD apps in order to select the final list of apps to be included in this study : EC1 Apps that cannot be installed EC2 Apps that have problems when they are installed EC3 Apps that have been developed for the Web and not for a mobile OS

Page 3 of 21 63

With regard to EC1, the installation of an app could fail for several reasons, such as: the phone software used in the evaluation does not support the app, the app is exclusive to a different mobile provider or the app is not available in the user’s region. As regards EC2, many problems could occur after installation such as: the user cannot login, the app cannot be opened, there is an error when attempting to connect to the server, or the app crashes immediately after opening. EC3 eliminates those web-based apps which do not follow any mobile OS recommendations. Web-based apps can keep the same formatting for all types of smartphones that have access to the Internet. e.g. Firefox OS apps, which are web apps [52]. The following app repositories were selected to perform the research: Apple App Store, Blackberry App World, Google Play, and Windows Mobile Store. The PICO (population, intervention, comparison and outcome) [53] criteria were used to define the search string. The population considered is that of blood donors; our intervention was free apps for BD and all existing outcomes regarding BD apps are of interest in this study. As the aim of this paper is not to find evidence concerning BD free apps, the “Comparison” part of the PICO criteria was excluded. The search string is defined below: Blood AND (donat* OR give OR type* OR bank* OR network* OR center* OR help OR need*) BD app selection The selection of BD apps was organized as follows: 1. The search string was used to search for apps in the repositories in order to identify candidate apps for this study. 2. Eligibility criteria IC1, IC2, IC3 and IC4 were applied to the candidate apps. 3. The BD apps which did not meet IC and met exclusion criteria EC1, EC2 and EC3 were not selected.

Table 1 Research questions ID RQ1 RQ2 RQ3

Research Question What are the most usable BD apps for Android, Blackberry, iOS and Windows Phone? What are the differences between Android, Blackberry, iOS and Windows Phone BD apps as regards usability? To what degree do the BD apps comply with the usability recommendations proposed for Android, Blackberry, iOS and Windows Phone?

Motivation To analyze the apps evaluated individually To analyze how BD apps differ when programmed for Android, Blackberry, iOS and/or Windows Phone

To provide an objective result as regards the usability status of BD apps

63

Page 4 of 21

The activities above were carried out in May 2014 by one author and reviewed by another. Apps that were judged differently were discussed by the two authors who carried out the evaluation until an agreement had been reached. The remaining authors reviewed the final selection. Fig. 1 presents the result of the selection process in each app repository. A total of 133 BD apps were selected from the 188 apps identified. Data extraction strategy The data extraction was carried out between the 18th and 20th of May 2014 using the questionnaire shown in Table 2. The questionnaire was developed on the basis of a previous study on usability [54] by taking the app repository guidelines into consideration [47–50]. A survey conducted in [54] highlights the importance of the usability characteristics chosen in this study. A template was designed containing the data that should be extracted. Two authors and two experts in new technologies evaluated the BD apps. Each person has a different OS installed in her/his smartphone: Android version 4.3, Blackberry 10.2.1.2102, iOS 7.0.4, and Microsoft Windows* Phone 7.8. Two authors reviewed the apps which are available in more than one OS. They have obtained the same results. Each usability question (UQ) was scored as follows: 1 point if the answer to the question was “Yes”; 0.5 point if the answer to the question was “Yes, but only for some parts of the app”; and 0 point if the answer to the question was “No”. In order to answer UQ11, it was necessary for the app to provide the user with a login. Table 3 lists the apps which

Fig. 1 Selection process

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

do not have an authentication method and which were given a score of 1 point in order not to penalize them. The apps were classified into five quality groups according to their score [54]: Very high if the score was between 12 and 13; High if the score was between 8.5 and 11.5; Moderate if the score was between 5 and 8; Low if the score was between 1.5 and 4.5; and Very low if the score was between 0 and 1. This classification is based on a global unsupervised discretization method [55], a variation of the equal width interval binning in which the upper and lower bins are shorter than the other bins with the aim of discriminating between extreme scores. Each UQ was stated after studying the app repository guidelines. Only the questions regarding usability were extracted. Guideline sections regarding color, themes, typography and compatibility were discarded in this study as they are specific to each OS and cannot be applied to all apps. Table 4 links each UQ with the corresponding section of each repository guideline. The assessment of the apps was based on the 13 usability criteria shown in Table 2.

Results and discussion This section describes and discusses the results of this study. The final list of the free BD apps selected in this study, along with their basic information, is shown in Tables 6, 7 and 8 in Appendix A: ID of the app, name, URL, repository, installation number, user rating, number of raters and the latest update of the app when an app was selected. The

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

Page 5 of 21 63

Table 2 Questionnaire and usability recommendations Block Style

ID Usability Question UQ1 Is the writing style simple and informal and is the second person used to talk to the user? UQ2 Are pictures used to explain ideas? UQ3 Are pre-defined icons used for common actions? UQ4 Does the app adapt to both horizontal and vertical orientations?

Behavior UQ5 Are the user preferences learned over time? UQ6 Do the elements react to the user’s gestures by changing color or illumination? UQ7 Are there confirming messages showing warning information related to actions that the user needs to consider? UQ8 Are there acknowledging messages to let users know that the action they have invoked has been completed? UQ9 Do long tasks show non-stationary activity indicators?

Guideline recommendation

Be simple and friendly. User may skip sentences if they are long. Pictures are more efficient than words to explain ideas. Try to use the built-in icons to perform common tasks. Screens should have the same functionality regardless of orientation Learn user preferences so he or she does not have to make the same choices over and over again. Use color and illumination to provide a visual response to user touches

Ask users if they want to proceed with the action they invoked

Users need some feedback about their actions Reassure users that their task has not stalled

Structure UQ10 Is the app loaded immediately without any splash screen or startup experience? Present useful content immediately to give a better user experience UQ11 Is the login delayed to allow the user to use a particular functionality first? Users often abandon apps when they need to log in to do anything useful UQ12 Are suggested structure patterns used: action/tool bar, tab bar, spinner or navigation drawer? Implement a structure that supports the purpose of your app UQ13 Is the navigation consistent when moving between hierarchical screens? Make the app’s navigation predictable and reliable

first letter of the ID represents the first letter of the app repository e.g. an app ID beginning with the letter G refers to an Android app that is available in Google Play while the ID of an iOS app which is available in Apple App Store starts with the letter A. These tables also show the type of each BD app. The following eight types were identified: – – – – – –

–

Find donors. Apps which help the user find donors Find centers. Apps which help the user find centers/hospitals at which she/he can donate blood Records. Apps which record the user’s donation history Blood types. Apps which explain information about blood types to the user Blood calculation. Apps which estimate the user’s blood type by using the blood types of relatives Related to a center. Apps which provide the user with information related to a center or centers such as BTS, hospitals, or laboratories Eligibility. Apps which calculate the date on which the user may donate blood based on the date of her/his last BD

•

General information. Apps which provide the user with general information about the BD process

Around 53 % of the BD apps selected help users find donors, 19 % aid users Find centers, 10 % calculate the eligibility date for the next donation based on the previous BD date, 7 % are records, 4 % provide information about blood types, 3 % are developed to give information about

Table 3 BD apps that do not have login method ID of BD apps with no login A3 A4 A5 A9 A8 A10 A15 A21 A22 B1 B2 B3 G1 G2 G5 G7 G10 G13 G14 G15 G16 G18 G19 G21 G22 G24 G26 G27 G32 G34 G35 G40 G42 G43 G44 G45 G46 G47 G48 G50 G51 G52 G53 G54 G55 G58 G60 G61 G62 G63 G67 G70 G71 G72 G74 G78 G79 G80 G82 G83 G85 G86 G89 G90 G91 G92 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W10 W12 W13

Page 6 of 21

63

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

Table 4 Usability guideline sections of the app repositories associated with the UQs ID

Android Guidelines Section Blackberry Guidelines Section iOS Guidelines Section

Windows Phone Guidelines Section

UQ1 UQ2 UQ3 UQ4 UQ5 UQ6 UQ7 UQ8 UQ9 UQ10 UQ11 UQ12 UQ13

Style Writing Style GSD Principles Style Iconography P. Multi-pane Layouts GSD Principles Style Touch Feedback PCA PCA BBP and Activity UIG P. Help UIG P. Accessibility UIG P. App Structure UIG P. Navigation UIG

DL App design process DL Motion and interactions DL Structure and navigation models DL Motion and interactions DL Motion and interactions DL Motion and interactions DL Controls design guidelines DL Controls design guidelines DL Controls design guidelines DL Controls design guidelines DL Controls design guidelines DL Controls design guidelines DL Controls design guidelines

UIG Text UIG Strategies UIG Icons and indicators UIG OC on the screen UIG Components UIG Touch screen UIG Components UIG Components UIE Components Accessibility Accessibility Strategies Strategies

UIDB Terminology and Wording UIDB Layout UIDB Icons and Graphics UIDB Integrating with iOS DS From Concept to Product UIDB Interactivity and Feedback UIE Temporary Views Temporary Views UIE Controls UIDB Starting and Stopping UIDB Starting and Stopping UIDB iOS App Anatomy UIDB Navigation

Acronyms: GSD refers to Get Started Design, P refers to Patterns, PCA refers to Patterns Confirming & Acknowledging, BBP refers to Building Blocks Progress,UIG refers to UI Guidelines, OC refers to Organizing content, UIDB refers to UI Design Basics, DS refers to Design Strategies, UIE refers to UI Elements, DL refers to Design Library

BD centers, 3 % provide general BD information and only 1% estimates the user’s blood type.

Blood (G6), GiveBloodApp (G56), Yadonor (G89), and Ahyeeha bi damik (G91). Three of these apps did not obtain the maximum score for the same reason: they do not acknowledge that the user’s action has been completed, while app G56 does not adapt to both horizontal and vertical orientations. This is also the case of the my Blood Bank app (B3) which obtained the highest score of the Blackberry apps (12 points). The Android app Blood donors (G21), with 11.5 points, scores half a point in UQ5 owing to the fact that not all user preferences are learned over time, and it is for this reason that G21 does not figure in the top ranked Android apps. Not acknowledging users’ completed actions and not adapting to both orientations were the reasons why the Blood of Hope app (A5), which attained the highest iOS usability score (11 points), did not obtain the maximum score. The Windows Phone app with the

RQ1. The most usable BD apps for android, blackberry, iOS and windows phone The usability assessment results of the free BD apps selected are shown in Tables 9, 10 and 11 in Appendix B, while Figs. 2 and 3 show the ranking of the free BD apps selected based on the score obtained in each block of the questionnaire. None of the apps scored 13 points. The most usable apps obtained more than 8.5. Around 72% (66 out of 92) of Android apps, 57% (8 out of 14) of Windows Phone apps, 33 % (8 out of 24) of iOS apps and 33% (1 out of 3) of Blackberry apps have a high score. Four Android apps have the highest usability score (12 points): Any Time

12

4 4 4 4 4

4

3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

6

4

3 3

1 3

4

3 3 3

3 3 4

4

4 4 3.5 5 5

3 4 4 4

3 4 4

3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 4

2 4 5 3

3

2 4

3 3 3 4

3 4 3 4 4

4 4 4 5

3 4 3

4 4

2 4

3 3 3

3 3 4

4

4 4

2

4 3

3 3

2 3 3 2 4

3 3 2 3

4

4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 2 3 3 3 G6 G59 B3 G89 G91 G21 G1 G2 G11 G14 G26 A5 G27 W8 G41 G42 G44 G50 G53 G63 G64 G69 G78 G83 G90 G92 G3 G7 G15 G16 G20 G22 W5 G30 G32 G49 W10 G54 W11 G56 G60 G65 G67 G68 A14 G71 G74 G80 G81 G85 G4 W1 G10 A3 G17 G19 A4 G31 G33 G34 G35 G36 A6 G38 G39 G45

0

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Style

Fig. 2 Free BD apps classification. Part 1

Behaviour

Structure

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

Page 7 of 21 63

12

2

2 3 3

6

4 4

3

2 2 3

2 2 3

3

2 3

3 3

2

2

1

3 3

G46 G48 W9 A10 G55 A13 W12 G61 G66 W14 G75 G76 G77 A20 G86 G87 G88 G9 A1 G18 G23 G25 G28 G37 G40 G43 A9 G51 G70 G72 A18 G79 G82 A22 A23 A24 G5 G12 A7 G47 A12 G62 A15 A16 G73 A21 G84 W3 W4 G29 W6 B2 A8 G52 G57 G58 A17 A19 A2 G13 G24 W7 B1 G8 W2 A11 W13

4

2

3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 3 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 4 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 0 0 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

0

4 4

0 2

Style

Behaviour

Structure

Fig. 3 Free BD apps classification. Part 2

records selected in this study are used as mPHR for BD and they are available only for Android and iOS. A previous research work [54] has assessed the usability of 24 mPHRs for Android and iOS and concluded that although the average score is high, usability should be significantly improved in mPHRs. As observed in Fig. 4, find donors or find centers apps that use maps or social networks provide the user with a good usability experience, unlike general information or blood types apps which display only information on screen. Nonetheless, developing an attractive app is highly critical to its success, especially within a competitive set of apps.

highest score is BloodDonation SG (W8) (11 points). This app did not obtain the maximum score because it does not use pictures to explain ideas and does not acknowledge users’ completed actions. Four apps tie in the last position: Bangladesh Blood Bank (G8) for Android, the GiveBloodApp app (A11) for iOS and the Blood Buddy (W2) and Know Your Blood Type (W13) apps for Windows Phone. Figure 4 shows the types of the BD apps selected and their score. Because some apps fit more than one type, their scores were counted for each type. Around 73% of records, 69% of find donors and 61 % of find centers apps have a high score. A very high score has been obtained by four find donors apps and only one find centers app. The lowest score was scored by: two find donors apps, one blood types app and one general information app. The average score of: records is 9.5, while that of find donors is 9.1 and that of find centers is 8.9, which are high scores. The

Related to center BD app type

General information Blood types Blood calculation

11 2 1 111 2 1 1 3

2 0

Find donors

1

2

5

3

1

5

1

4

Find donors

3

3

2

2 1 2

Find centers

Score 4 Score 5 Score 6 Score 7 Score 8 Score 9 Score 10 Score 11 Score 11.5 Score 12

Figure 5 presents the score of BD apps per repositories. Google Play hosts the majority of the selected BD apps and

1111

Eligibility Record

RQ2. The differences between android, blackberry, iOS and windows phone BD apps as regards usability

7

2

7

5

10 Find centers

2 2 2 7 11 21 16 13

4 1 5 7 6 4

4

1

6

4

1

11 15

21 20

Record

25

30

16

35

Eligibility

40

45

Blood calculation

55

Blood types 1

1 2 3 1 3 1

2 2 3 3 5

1

1

Number of apps

Fig. 4 BD apps type and score

50

1 2 1

4

13 60

65 General information 1 1 2 1

70

75

80

Related to center

1 1 1 1

Page 8 of 21

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

Fig. 5 Number of apps per repository and score

100

10.00

9.22

9.00

90 7.71

Number of apps

80

7.71

7.67

8.00

70

7.00

60

6.00

50

5.00

40

4.00

30

3.00

20

2.00

10

1.00

Average score

63

0.00

0 App Store

Blackberry App World

Google Play

Windows Mobile App Store

App repositories

Low score Very high score

also has the highest average usability score (9.2 points) compared to Apple Store, Blackberry App World and Windows Mobile App Store. Apps from these three repositories have almost the same average score of 7.7 points. The top 5 in the classification of apps is crowded with Android apps. B3 is the only Blackberry app that managed to enter the top 5 ranked apps. Figure 6 breaks down the average score of each platform per block. This figure highlights the main differences

2 1

Style 2.95

Behaviour Structure 2.7 2.3

3

Style 2.6

4

Behaviour Structure 2.93 2.36

5

Style 2.43

6 Behaviour 3.18

Average score

7

Behaviour Structure 2.96 2.33

8

Style 2.42

9

Structure 3.1

10

iOS

Windows Phone

Blackberry

0 Android

Fig. 6 OS average score per block

Moderate score Average score

High score

between Android and the three other OS which reside in the behavior and style blocks. The average scores per block are almost equal for iOS, Windows Phone and Blackberry. This result indicates that developers of Android apps take Android guidelines into consideration, unlike the developers of iOS, Windows Phone or Blackberry. This usability result for iOS is quite surprising as, according to [56], iOS provides the most efficient and best development environment for UI design. The reason for this result could be a lack of knowledge of the programming language and the development environment. Android uses Java and Android studio which has replaced Eclipse with Android development tools (ADT) [57] while iOS uses Swift which is a new programing language for iOS and OS X based on Objective-C [58] and Xcode. Developers, and novice developers in particular, are much more likely to be familiar with the combination of Java and Eclipse than Objective-C and Xcode [59]. Google provides developers with tools that offer a full Java IDE with advanced features for Android app development [60]. The Apps for Windows Phone 7 are written in .NET managed code. Windows Phone 7 supports two programming platforms, namely Silverlight and XNA. The Silverlight platform provides developers with the ability to create sophisticated user interfaces [59]. This may explain the similarities between the usability scores of iOS

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

Page 9 of 21 63

14 12 10 Score

8 6

Android Blackberry iOS Windows Phone

4 2

te

Le Fr ba ie nd no s2 n Su pp or t.o G rg iv eB lo od A pp In di iD an on Bl 8 oo d D on or Th s Li e fe Bl C oo ir c d le C + en te rM ob D on ile or (R us si an )

an on

SC

D D

Bl oo d

D on at io n Bl oo d M on k Bl oo dS Bl ha oo re dy H el p Fr ee

0

Fig. 7 Difference between BD apps available in more than one repository

and Windows Phone. The small number of Blackberry BD apps selected in this study signifies that we cannot discuss the average Blackberry usability score. However, it should be noted that Blackberry app developers may use different development platforms [61]. Blackberry also provides Android developers with the possibility of repackaging their apps to run on BlackBerry 10 devices [62]. More BD apps are therefore expected to be available in Blackberry App World. Thirteen of the free BD apps evaluated are available in more than one OS. Figure 7 highlights the score differences between each version. Note that the W2 and A2 apps share the same name, Blood Buddy, but that they are completely different apps. They were not therefore included in Fig. 7. The results show that 77% of the apps that are available in more than one OS are available for both Android and iOS. The Friends2Support.org app is available in three repositories: Google Play, Apple Store and Windows Mobile App Store. The Donante app is available for Blackberry (B1) and Android (G48). The LifeCircle+ app is developed for iOS (A14) and Windows Phone (W14). The Indian Blood Donors app has two versions, Android (G61) and Windows Phone (W12) both of which obtained the same usability

score. With the exception of the LifeCircle+ and BloodShare apps which are available for both Android (G37) and iOS (A6), the highest score goes to Android apps. The highest difference is 6 points out of 13 for GiveBloodApp. The iOS version and the Android version have behavioral and structural differences, which could be attributed to the fact that the Android version’s latest update (30-Jan-14) is more recent than that of the iOS version (6-Jun-13). This could also be the reason for the 4-point difference between the Android version (11-Dec-13) of Donante and its Blackberry version (6-Mar-12). One remarkable result was discovered in the Indian Blood Donors app: both versions have a different design but provide the same functionalities and share the same score although they differ in the UQs result. Another interesting finding is that some apps which are developed for the same OS by the same developer share the same design with minor changes. This is the case of the 24HRBloodBank (G1) and 24hrDawoodiBohraBloodBank (G2) apps which differ only in the color of the background: one is red while the other is white. The Blood4Africa (G30) and Donatebloodtoday (G49) apps also share the same design and differ only in the logo’s image and text. There are other apps which are available in many versions, but only

Table 5 Quality groups’ result Quality group

Score

# BD apps

% BD apps

Very high High Moderate Low Very low

[12, 13] [8.5, 11.5] [5, 8] [1.5, 4.5] [0, 1]

5 78 46 4 0

4% 59% 34% 3% 0%

63

Page 10 of 21

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

found it critical to adapt the app to portrait and landscape orientations, and to notify users of their completed tasks; (ii) some programmers lack experience in app programming, which may have affected their ability to adapt the views when the display environment changes or to show a notification on the screen when the action is completed; (iii) the developers’ limitations as regards their knowledge of mobile OS guidelines could be one reason why they do not provide users with such functionalities. Specifically, with regard to landscape orientations, these features are particularly interesting as regards exploiting the capabilities of accelerometers. However, manifold scenario-awareness functionalities are not required in BD apps, unlike other domains such as gaming [63]. Pictures with which to explain ideas are not displayed in half of the free BD apps selected. A review [64] has listed the benefits of using pictures in health education and communication. Pictures can improve comprehension of the BD process and can help BD app users understand the use of the app. The remaining UQs have a moderate coverage in more than half of the BD apps analyzed but in less than 80% of them. Within this group of UQs, UQ11 is particularly interesting in the health domain. A total of 76% of the BD apps achieved a score of 1. Although the usability guidelines suggest delaying the authentication until the user has first tried out the app, the BD records in particular may require no delay in identification owing to its high level of sensitivity. Deferring the authentication is appropriate in the rest of the types of BD apps, since the user gets familiar with the app before performing the login processes which usually contaminate the user experience [54, 65]. Each app has a specific description in its repository. User rating, number of reviews and latest update of the app are found among the data provided. A comparison has been made in order to discover whether or not the user rating provides an idea of the app’s usability. Fig. 9 shows a comparison between our usability score and the user rating of 96 free BD apps which provide this data. The percentage for the user rating is calculated by dividing the number of stars given by the user by the total number of stars. Around

one version was selected in this study. This is the case of: (1) the Blood4LifeID app whose Android version (G35) was included in this study but whose Blackberry version was discarded owing to EC1; (2) the MDA app which has an iOS version (A15) and an Android version that was discarded owing to EC2 since it has a server connection error; and (3) the Android version of the app Pint4Life which was discarded owing to EC2 while the iOS version (A19) was selected. RQ3. The BD apps’ compliance with the usability recommendations Table 5 shows the percentage of apps that scored in each quality group (Very high, High, Moderate, Low,Very Low), as presented in Section “Data extraction strategy”. Only five apps are classified in the very high quality group. The remaining apps are included in the high and moderate quality groups, with the exception of 3% of the apps which figure in the low quality group. None of the free BD apps analyzed appears in the very low group. This figure allows us to deduce that 63% of the free BD apps selected have a good compliance with usability recommendations. Nevertheless, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, although some apps share the same ranking, they differ in style, behavior and structure. The average score percentage of the BD apps selected is 67.4%. The average score percentage of each block is: 70% for style, 58% for behavior, and 76% for structure. Figure 8 shows the score result of each UQ. More than 85% of the BD apps analyzed have a simple writing style, use pre-defined icons for common actions, are loaded immediately with no problems and have a consistent navigation between hierarchical screens. Around 35% of the BD apps analyzed can adapt to both horizontal and vertical orientations, while 16% acknowledge the user’ action when it is completed by displaying a message. There may be a number of reasons why UQ4 and UQ8 have a low score: (i) the developers of the BD apps which have a low score in these two questions may not have

Fig. 8 Score result per UQ Percentage of BD apps

98%

92%

90% 77%

77%

85% 72%

67%

57%

54%

53% 35% 16% 131

71

123

46

89.5

103

103

UQ1

UQ2

UQ3

UQ4

UQ5

UQ6 UQ7 UQ8 Usability questions

21

72

120

96

76

113

UQ9 UQ10 UQ11 UQ12 UQ13

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

Page 11 of 21 63 400

120%

350

100%

Percentage

Number of raters

300 80%

250

60%

200 150

40%

100 20%

50 A10 A2 A20 B1 G33 G40 G45 W10 G1 G12 G24 G28 G37 G47 G63 G82 W5 B3 G11 G21 G68 G80 W13 G66 G17 G20 G3 G5 G67 G72 G76 G79 G32 G49 G58 G8 A9 G10 G14 G38 G57 G6 G77 G83 G92 G35 G56 G62 A13 A17 G25 G64 G16 G84 G48 G69 G26 G59 G75 G70 G81 G87 G91 G18 G23 G52 G74 G46 G85 G13 G15 G29 G7 G19 A21 G39 G31 G44 G89 G55 G50 G73 G65 G34 G42 G43 G36 G2 G9 G60 G71 G61 G88 G90 G54 G41

0%

0

Rated apps in repositories

Number of raters

User Rating

Usability score

Fig. 9 BD apps users rating vs usability score

the average score of apps per month is not influenced by the date on which the apps are updated. A Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.10 was obtained between the variables’ usability score and the number of months since the last update. Fig. 10 also indicates that since February 2013, the number of apps updated per month has been continuous.

1

2

6

2

3

4

1

3

3

Main findings The main findings of this study are: •

3

5

10

2

5

5

11

7

6

8

7

11

7.5

8.9

8.2

10.0 9

9.0

7.7

9.6

9.7 7.3

8.3

8.7 5

5 May-14

Apr-14

Mar-14

Feb-14

Jan-14

Dec-13

Nov-13

Oct-13

Sep-13

Jul-13

Aug-13

Fig. 10 BD apps average usability score and number of apps in their last update

4 Jun-13

May-13

Mar-13

Apr-13

Feb-13

Jan-13

Dec-12

Nov-12

Oct-12

Aug-12

Sep-12

Jul-12

Jun-12

Mar-12

Apr-12

Feb-12

Nov-11/ Jan-12

Jun/Sep-11

Oct-11

May-11

Oct/Apr-10

Sep-10

Number of apps

7.8

9.0

9.0

9.0

•

8.5

•

3

Average score

There is a significant difference between the scores obtained by free BD apps for Android and the other OS. See Fig. 5. Records, find donors and find center apps are the most usable BD apps available in repositories. See Fig. 4. Around 63% of the free BD apps selected have a good compliance with usability recommendations. See Table 5. Behavior is the most frequently ignored facet in the free BD apps analyzed. See Fig. 6.

•

9.0

9.0

9.0

8.0

6.8

8.5

8.0

9.0

1

1

7.2

8.0

7.0

9.0

66% of the apps presented in Fig. 9 were rated by less than 20 users. In order to achieve a high confidence that the users’ review is representative, with a margin of error lower than 25%, we selected apps that had been reviewed by a sample size consisting of at least 20 users [66] in order to discuss their results. The user rating of the apps is higher than their usability score percentage, with the exception of 24hrDawoodiBohraBloodBank (G2), Blutspende beim DRK (G41), Give Blood with VZP (G55), and Ik geef bloed (G60). When the number of the users increases, the difference between both trends decreases. Moreover, when the number of raters exceeds 50 users, the user rating can be considered to approximately indicate the compliance of the app with the OS usability guidelines. Nevertheless, a Pearson correlation coefficient was used to calculate the correlation between user rating and usability score in apps rated by more than 20 users, thus obtaining a low inter-rater agreement (0.17). The following question may come to the reader’s mind: is a recently updated app more usable than an older one? In order to answer this question, we calculated the average score of apps per month in order to compare the result in a timeline. Fig. 10 shows that

63

•

•

•

Page 12 of 21

More than 85% of the BD apps analyzed have a simple writing style, use pre-defined icons for common actions, can be loaded immediately with no problems and have a consistent navigation between hierarchical screens. See Fig. 8. Around 35% of the free BD apps selected do not support orientation changes and do not interact with users by displaying an acknowledgment of completed actions. See Fig. 8. Information about the app’s user rating can provide an approximate indication of the compliance of the app with the OS usability guidelines when the number of raters is high. See Fig. 9.

Recommendations for BD app developers The usability guidelines presented in this study should be taking into consideration while developing an app. The following features can be highlighted: orientation changes; display of acknowledgment messages after completed actions; images to explain ideas; non-stationary activity indicators and structure patterns. Blood donor requirements in term of usability should be analyzed and specified after requirements elicitation phase. The preparation of an effective requirements specification document can be achieved by following requirements engineering processes [67] and requirements specification standards [68, 69]. User experience metrics may be an efficient tool with which to improve and evaluate the design of any product [70]. Attention should therefore be paid to user experience during BD app development. Usability tests should be undertaken during the design and the development process [71, 72]. Although no strong evidence was obtained with regard to the use of the users’ ratings as a proxy for usability (Fig. 9), BD app developers may consider users’ comments on usability when low ratings are achieved. This may help developers view the compliance of their BD apps with mobile OS usability guidelines. A cross-platform mobile environment which can be adapted to the usability guidelines of many platforms [73] can be used to develop BD apps, e.g. Titanium which provides the user with the “look-and-feel” of a native OS app [74]. Finally, developers should undergo training on the recent usability aspects of each mobile OS. Many books [75–78] and websites, including mobile OS websites can help developers learn recent mobile OS features. Limitations of the study This study may have some limitations, such as: the search string used to identify the BD apps may not have contained words relevant to our search. PICO criteria have been

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

used to alleviate this threat. Moreover, the application of IC2 and IC4 may have caused some relevant apps to b e omitted from our study, and these limitations may have slightly affected its results. The use and adaptation of a usability quality assessment process from a previous study may have led to the omission of some relevant usability questions which could have been included in this study. Furthermore, the apps available on the same platform were assessed by the same person. This validity threat may result in an observer bias which has been avoided by using objective assessment questions. This has been proved by the same results obtained by two authors who assessed the apps which are available in more than one OS. Nevertheless, we believe that our findings may be used in future works on BD apps.

Conclusion and future work This study has assessed the compliance of 133 free BD app with the usability guidelines of Android, Blackberry, iOS and Windows Phone. Around 63% of the free BD apps have a good compliance with the usability recommendations. Moreover, Android achieved the highest average usability score. iOS and Windows Phone shared the second position with the same average usability score while Blackberry had the lowest score. Furthermore, the percentage for the average usability score of the BD apps selected was 67.4%. There is, therefore, room for improvement in the case of usability, particularly as regards the behavioral aspects of the BD apps. Our findings conclude with a set of recommendations made for BD app developers. As future work, an online survey will be conducted to validate the results obtained in this paper. The survey will be taken by mobile BD apps users. Participants will be recruited by using social networks. Moreover, we plan to prepare a reusable requirements catalog in order to develop a BD app, which may be adapted, refined and expressed in the form of software and system requirements. Reusable requirements catalogs have already been suggested in many fields, such as learning systems [79], eHealth [80] and eLearning areas [81]. This catalog will be of great use to our team as regards developing a BD app that will have good software product quality. Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements This research is part of the GEODAS- REQ project (TIN2012-37493-C03-02) financed by both the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and European FEDER funds. The mobility grant of Sofia Ouhbi is financed by the Mediterranean Office for Youth (MOY GRANT N 2010/045/01). The mobility grant of Manal El Bajta is financed by Erasmus Mundus Program (204195 EM-1-2011-1-ES-ERA MUNDUS-EMA21).

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

Page 13 of 21 63

Appendix A: Free BD apps Tables 6, 7 and 8 present the final list of the free BD apps selected in this study.

Table 6 Free BD apps selected ID App name G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

Type

Link

Source

# Installs

Rating # Raters Latest up-date

24HRBloodBank Find donors http://goo.gl/I0V2jb Google Play 10 - 50 5 24hrDawoodiBohra BloodBank Find donors http://goo.gl/uWuPo4 Google Play 1,000 - 5,000 4.2 Acil Kan Bankasi Find donors http://goo.gl/dnyInh Google Play 10 - 50 4.8 AJS Blood Find donors http://goo.gl/o0htkc Google Play 10 - 50 N/A American Red Cross Club at OSU Find donors & eligibility http://goo.gl/kqYAOm Google Play 1,000 - 5,000 4 G6 Any Time Blood Find donors http://goo.gl/ObPwTp Google Play 50 - 100 4.2 G7 AVIS Toscana Related to center http://goo.gl/nUYzuN Google Play 100 - 500 4.8 G8 Bangladesh Blood Bank Find donors http://goo.gl/bnZXdd Google Play 100 - 500 4.3 W1 Be Humane BD Find donors http://goo.gl/L7NrvO Windows Phone N/A N/A G9 Blood 4 India Find donors http://goo.gl/9HVNdz Google Play 1,000 - 5,000 4.8 A1 Blood Bank of Delmarva Find centers http://goo.gl/e9Bpu4 App Store N/A N/A W2 Blood Buddy General Information http://goo.gl/cyUGK7 Windows Phone N/A N/A A2 Blood Buddy Eligibility http://goo.gl/LaRAqX App Store N/A 4 G10 Blood Calc Blood calculation http://goo.gl/GlPjgM Google Play 500 - 1,000 3.5 G11 Blood Call Find donors http://goo.gl/lyqB3T Google Play 100 - 500 3.3 G12 Blood Corner Find donors http://goo.gl/8e7VsK Google Play 100 - 500 5 G13 BD Find donors http://goo.gl/LDgMTx Google Play 100 - 500 4.8 G14 BD Find centers http://goo.gl/wEZnZG Google Play 1,000 - 5,000 4.1 A3 BD Find donors http://goo.gl/lxTNyj App Store N/A N/A G15 BD calculator Eligibility http://goo.gl/Rv2bEP Google Play 5,000 - 10,000 4.6 G16 BD Reminder Eligibility http://goo.gl/hGm4f9 Google Play 100 - 500 4.8 G17 Blood Donor Find donors http://goo.gl/xC0egd Google Play 500 - 1,000 2.8 G18 Blood Donor Contact Manager Find donors http://goo.gl/Z5alOy Google Play 1,000 - 5,000 4.2 G19 Blood Donor Contacts Find donors http://goo.gl/QC1JZQ Google Play 500 - 1,000 4.9 G20 Blood Donor India Find donors http://goo.gl/4JQUeb Google Play 100 - 500 4.4 G21 Blood donors Record http://goo.gl/TunkPw Google Play 100 - 500 2.7 W3 Blood DonRec Blood types http://goo.gl/a1VXsk Windows Phone N/A N/A W4 Blood facts General information http://goo.gl/7zuC01 Windows Phone N/A N/A G22 Blood Gift Find centers http://goo.gl/7438UW Google Play 50 - 100 N/A G23 Blood Group Finder Find donors http://goo.gl/ea5w3I Google Play 1,000 - 5,000 4.2 G24 Blood Group Recipient finder Find donors http://goo.gl/Dt0Kfg Google Play 100 - 500 4.5 W5 Blood helpers Find donors http://goo.gl/UJxtLl Windows Phone N/A 5 G25 Blood Money Find donors http://goo.gl/nsK7rU Google Play 10 - 50 5 G26 Blood Monk Find donors http://goo.gl/a3T2TS Google Play 100 - 500 4.9 A4 Blood Monk Find donors http://goo.gl/DhG0Qe App Store N/A N/A A5 Blood of Hope Find donors http://goo.gl/t0gBHf App Store N/A N/A G27 Blood Search Find donors http://goo.gl/eK6PS8 Google Play 1-5 N/A G28 Blood Supply Network Find donors centers http://goo.gl/FnMSnl Google Play 50 - 100 5 G29 Blood Type Find donors http://goo.gl/gdIVMR Google Play 500 - 1,000 4.6 W6 blood in body Eligibility http://goo.gl/xe6esJ Windows Phone N/A N/A G30 Blood4Africa Find donors http://goo.gl/1X6J16 Google Play 10 - 50 N/A

2 92 5 N/A

20-Sep-13 19-Sep-13 21-Feb-14 24-Aug-13

5 8 33 6 N/A 96 N/A N/A 1 8 3 2 28 8 N/A 28 11 5 21 34 5 3 N/A N/A N/A 21 2 2 10 13 N/A N/A N/A 2 30 N/A N/A

13-Mar-12 20-Jan-14 29-Apr-14 18-Oct-13 30-Aug-12 1-May-14 14-Aug-13 17-Dec-13 3-Apr-14 9-Jun-13 5-Feb-13 16-Aug-12 6-Mar-14 28-Nov-12 28-Nov-12 27-Dec-12 31-Mar-14 10-May-11 4-Oct-11 21-Feb-13 22-Mar-12 16-Dec-12 1-Jun-12 29-Aug-12 15-Jun-12 7-Aug-13 13-Oct-13 11-Oct-12 11-Apr-14 25-Sep-13 1-Apr-14 29-Apr-14 4-Mar-14 17-Oct-13 21-Mar-14 2-Jul-13 24-Feb-14

63

Page 14 of 21

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

Table 6 (continued) ID

App name

Type

Link

Source

# Installs

Rating

# Raters

Latest up-date

G31 G32 G33 W7 W8

Blood4Life Blood4LifeID BloodBoon BloodDemand BloodDonation SG

Find donors Find donors Find donors General information Find donors

http://goo.gl/tdC6bW http://goo.gl/xYC5re http://goo.gl/v3InD8 http://goo.gl/nQohZy http://goo.gl/RSKlRd

Google Play Google Play Google Play Windows Phone Windows Phone

50 - 100 100 - 500 1-5 N/A N/A

4.9 4.5 5 N/A N/A

37 6 1 N/A N/A

4-May-14 11-Oct-12 10-Jan-14 31-Aug-12 31-Mar-12

Type

Link

Source

# Installs

Rating # Raters Latest up-date

Blood types Find donors Find donors & centers Find donors Find donors

http://goo.gl/F5Y7Au http://goo.gl/Kas1R0

Google Play Google Play

10,000 -50,000 100 - 500

4.5 4.6

75 9

16-Feb-13 8-Nov-12

http://goo.gl/LRVNLh http://goo.gl/zZR7Oa http://goo.gl/WPVuq3

Google Play Google Play App Store

1,000 - 5,000 10 - 50 N/A

4.8 2.5 N/A

90 2 N/A

7-May-14 20-May-13 22-May-13

Find donors Find donors Record Find donors

http://goo.gl/YYM9VQ http://goo.gl/N05FSz http://goo.gl/YG0caF http://goo.gl/Zh3G12

Google Play App Store Google Play Google Play

500 - 1,000 N/A 100 - 500 1-5

4.2 N/A 4.7 5

8 N/A 36 1

19-Mar-14 15-May-14 6-Apr-14 27-Feb-14

http://goo.gl/H6y4jW

Google Play

50,000 -100,000 3.5

343

15-Nov-13

http://goo.gl/33acq0 http://goo.gl/hTWkbQ

Google Play Google Play

4.5

80

1-Feb-14

Google Play Google Play

1,000 - 5,000 5,000 10,000 500 - 1,000 50 - 100

3.7 4.6 5

85 40 1

31-Jul-12 12-Jan-14 8-Apr-13

Google Play Google Play Google Play Blackberry

1,000 - 5,000 100 - 500 100 - 500 N/A

4.6 4 4 1

25 2 12 1

17-Mar-13 27-May-13 11-Dec-13 6-Mar-12

Google Play 100 - 500 App Store N/A Windows Phone N/A Google Play 500 - 1,000 App Store N/A Google Play 10 - 50

4.8 N/A N/A 4.9 5 N/A

6 N/A N/A 48 7 N/A

21-Apr-14 5-Mar-13 12-Jul-13 31-May-13 31-Oct-12 3-Oct-13

Google Play Google Play

3 N/A

22 N/A

14-May-12 28-Oct-13

Part 1

Table 7 Free BD apps selected ID

App name

G34 BloodGroups G35 Bloodhelper G36 Bloodline G37 BloodShare A6 BloodShare G38 BloodyHelp Free A7 G39 G40 G41

BloodyHelp Free Bloodzone Bloopedia Blutspende beim DRK G42 Daruj Kri G43 Don du Sang

Record Find donors centers Find centers

G44 Don du Sang 2.0 Record http://goo.gl/pxKcDS G45 Don du sang Tunisie Find centers http://goo.gl/WduFGR G46 Dona il SANGUE Find donors centers eligibility http://goo.gl/C44K0I G47 donaci´on sangre Eligibility http://goo.gl/EcdNCJ G48 Donante Eligibility http://goo.gl/D5raBU B1 Donante Eligibility http://goo.gl/i1o9Cc G49 Donatebloodtoday Record & Find donors & centers & eligibility http://goo.gl/mwMSAf A8 DonorReminder Eligibility http://goo.gl/hHdFHQ W9 DonorTouche Find donors http://goo.gl/f44zsA G50 DSC Lebanon Record http://goo.gl/XinURw A9 DSC Lebanon Find donors http://goo.gl/SefXrD G51 eDelphyn Donors Find centers http://goo.gl/8EBvrs G52 Emergency Blood Bank Directory Find centers http://goo.gl/nt6toU G53 Eu Curto Doar Find centers http://goo.gl/TJlRnF W10 Friends2 Support.org Find donors http://goo.gl/CbuvgH

Windows

5,000 -10,000 50 - 100

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

Page 15 of 21 63

Table 7 (continued) ID

App name

Type

Link

Source

# Installs

Rating

# Raters

Latest up-date 29-Apr-13

Find donors

http://goo.gl/pvyD7K

A10 G55

Friends2Support.org Give Blood with VZP GiveBlood

Find donors

http://goo.gl/TKz9ia

App Store

N/A 5,000 10,000 N/A

1

Friends2Support.org

Phone Google Play

5

G54

4.7 5

290 1

3-Nov-13 10-May-13

Find centers Find donors

http://goo.gl/MSxlqr http://goo.gl/GoWy3P

1,000 - 5,000

3.4

45

2-Jul-12

Find donors Find donors Find donors Find centers

http://goo.gl/9hlW2U http://goo.gl/3EA79X http://goo.gl/8vOU3b http://goo.gl/zKcDE6

Google Play Windows Phone Google Play App Store App Store Google Play

N/A 100 - 500 N/A N/A 50 - 100

N/A 4.6 N/A N/A 4.9

N/A 9 N/A N/A 8

20-Jun-13 30-Jan-14 6-Jun-13 13-Apr-14 2-May-14

Find centers Find centers Find centers Find centers

http://goo.gl/uC41BP http://goo.gl/qAEil3 http://goo.gl/du7wIl http://goo.gl/1IVO6V

Google Play Google Play App Store Google Play

100 - 500 1,000 - 5,000 N/A 10,000 - 50,000

4.8 4 4 3.3

6 13 10 98

12-Aug-13 29-Mar-13 27-Mar-13 20-Jan-14

Find donors Find donors Find donors

http://goo.gl/wUzu0P http://goo.gl/XncpuX http://goo.gl/JMA2gD

Windows Phone Google Play Google Play

N/A 1,000 - 5,000 100 - 500

N/A 4.5 4.6

N/A 99 9

30-Nov-13 20-Oct-13 8-Feb-12

Find donors Find donors

http://goo.gl/JgV92q http://goo.gl/B6jz2v

Google Play Google Play

100 - 500 100 - 500

4 4.8

2 10

10-Feb-12 14-Jan-14

W11 G56 A11 A12 G57 G58 G59 A13 G60 W12 G61 G62 G63 G64

GiveBloodApp GiveBloodApp givemehope Heroi Hyderabad Blood Bank Details iDon8 iDon8 Ik geef bloed Indian Blood Donors Indian Blood Donors Indore Blood Infovidisha News & Blood Donor Jain Blood Group

Part 2 Table 8 Free BD apps selected. Part 3 ID

App name

G65 Kerala Blood Bank W13 Know Your Blood Type G66 KSADonors G67 Life Dropc G68 W14 A14 G69 G70 A15 G71

Type

Link

Source

# Installs

Rating # Raters Latest up-date

Find donors

http://goo.gl/luaaVh

Google Play

1,000 - 5,000

4.5

71

31-May-13

Blood types Find donors & centers Find donors centers Find donors Eligibility Eligibility Find donors Find centers General information

http://goo.gl/H2JDmI Windows Phone N/A

3.5

3

16-Mar-12

http://goo.gl/mxH8b1 Google Play

100 - 500

5

4

28-May-13

http://goo.gl/bh9TeB http://goo.gl/vcf9iM http://goo.gl/T2Nm73 http://goo.gl/9Uv21D http://goo.gl/6C6XvJ http://goo.gl/1oRzTL http://goo.gl/yT6RuK

50 - 100 100 - 500 N/A N/A 100 - 500 1,000 - 5,000 N/A

5 5 N/A N/A 4.9 4.4 N/A

5 3 N/A N/A 12 14 N/A

6-Dec-13 7-Jan-14 3-Dec-13 28-Mar-14 8-Oct-13 6-Jan-14 6-Oct-13

10,000 - 50,000 4.3 N/A N/A

98 N/A

3-Dec-12 19-Feb-14

Life Saver LifeCircle+ LifeCircle+ Lifeline Mavietonsang MDA MeinDRK - RotkreuzApp des DRK Find donors & centers A16 Michigan Blood Record

Google Play Google Play Windows Phone App Store Google Play Google Play App Store

http://goo.gl/TRxcbj Google Play http://goo.gl/vjMxBv App Store

63

Page 16 of 21

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

Table 8 (continued) ID

App name

G72 My Blood Bank B3 my Blood Bank G73 My Blood for You G74 My blood type G75 My Blood Type G76 MyBlood A17 MyDocHub Phlebotomy & BD center G77 NeedBlood A18 NZ Blood G78 Offine Blood Donor Manager A19 Pint4Life G79 PMI Golongan Darah A20 Redy: Social Blood Drive A21 SG Blood G80 G81 G82 G83

Social Blood Contacts Socialblood Sukrutham The Blood Center Mobile

A22 The Blood Center Mobile G84 Touch4Blood G85 Where can I donate

Type

Link

Source

Find donors Find donors

http://goo.gl/XuVb6t http://goo.gl/zkQEDn

Google Play 100 - 500 Blackberry N/A

4.6 5

5 3

27-Oct-13 26-Sep-13

Find donors Blood types Blood types Record

http://goo.gl/BVHa6h http://goo.gl/fc2NDh http://goo.gl/DkUgKx http://goo.gl/09j5PQ

Google Play Google Play Google Play Google Play

1,000 - 5,000 1,000 - 5,000 1,000 - 5,000 50 - 100

4.9 4.2 4.6 5

49 23 13 5

6-Oct-13 25-Feb-14 5-Nov-13 28-May-13

Find centers Related to centers Record

http://goo.gl/5I8zMk

App Store

N/A

5

10

10-Sep-13

http://goo.gl/NTU05v http://goo.gl/gFdw4h

Google Play 50 - 100 App Store N/A

3.9 N/A

8 N/A

8-May-13 29-Jul-12

Find donors Find donors Blood types

http://goo.gl/U9OWMX http://goo.gl/DwBLgX http://goo.gl/8YREeU

Google Play 1 - 5 App Store N/A Google Play 100 - 500

N/A N/A 4.4

N/A N/A 5

19-Apr-14 19-Nov-13 31-Jan-14

http://goo.gl/s7jKiA

App Store

N/A

4

1

12-Jul-13

http://goo.gl/iAee1y http://goo.gl/tJPqmd http://goo.gl/VEm7Tr http://goo.gl/xPkS9F

App Store Google Play Google Play Google Play

N/A 50 - 100 10 - 50 1-5

3 5 5 3.5

36 3 16 2

18-Sep-10 7-Aug-13 19-Apr-14 19-Mar-14

Related to centers

http://goo.gl/3Iewr8

Google Play 500 - 1,000

4.1

8

11-Nov-13

Related to centers Find donors

http://goo.gl/lbrG9D http://goo.gl/UnGXjh

App Store N/A Google Play 50 - 100

N/A 4.8

N/A 11

27-Sep-12 18-Mar-13

http://goo.gl/jjY6No http://goo.gl/PPd5Ce http://goo.gl/a0rBxO http://goo.gl/yFWtkO http://goo.gl/WwxWAW http://goo.gl/Cpv0N5 http://goo.gl/Og0sf6 http://goo.gl/ii22Jk

Google Play Google Play Google Play App Store Google Play App Store Google Play Google Play

5 N/A 4.9 N/A 4.1 N/A 4.7 4.3

26 N/A 17 N/A 127 N/A 43 127

1-Feb-14 7-Dec-13 23-May-13 21-Jun-13 10-Dec-13 7-Oct-13 15-Apr-14 27-Feb-14

http://goo.gl/j8ZhWD

Google Play 100 - 500

4.9

17

3-Nov-13

http://goo.gl/CJFerP

Google Play 100 - 500

4.2

8

11-Jul-13

Find donors & centers Find centers & eligibility Find donors Find donors Find donors

Find centers & eligibility G86 Zoon Blood Donor Find donors G87 Volunteers.DonorSearch Find donors A23 Dari-kr-v (Bulgarien) Find donors G88 Donor (Russian) Record A24 Donor (Russian) Record G89 Yadonor (Russian) Find donors G90 MDA (Hebrew) Find centers G91 Ahyeeha bi damik (Arabic) Find donors G92 Fiaat dam brija (Arabic) Find donors Part 3

# Installs

50 - 100 10 - 50 100 - 500 N/A 1,000 - 5,000 N/A 1,000 - 5,000 5,000 - 10,000

Rating # Raters Latest up-date

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

Page 17 of 21 63

Appendix B: Usability results Tables 9, 10 and 11 provide the usability assessment results of the free BD apps selected.

Table 9 Usability result ID

UQ1

UQ2

UQ3

UQ4

UQ5

UQ6

UQ7

UQ8

UQ9

UQ10

UQ11

UQ12

UQ13

Total

%

G6 G59 B3 G89 G91 G21 G1 G2 G11 G14 G26 A5 G27 W8 G41 G42 G44 G50 G53 G63 G64 G69 G78 G83 G90 G92 G3 G7 G15 G16 G20 G22 W5 G30 G32 G49 W10 G54 W11 G56 G60 G65 G67 G68 A14 G71

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

12 12 12 12 12 11.5 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

92 % 92 % 92 % 92 % 92 % 88% 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 85 % 77 % 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77 % 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77%

63

Page 18 of 21

Table 9

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

(continued)

ID

UQ1

UQ2

UQ3

UQ4

UQ5

UQ6

UQ7

UQ8

UQ9

UQ10

UQ11

UQ12

UQ13

Total

%

G74 G80 G81 G85

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 0 1 0

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

0 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 0 1

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

10 10 10 10

77% 77 % 77 % 77 %

Score above 70 %

Table 10 Usability result ID

UQ1

UQ2

UQ3

UQ4

UQ5

UQ6

UQ7

UQ8

UQ9

UQ10

UQ11

UQ12

UQ13

Total

%

G4 W1 G10 A3 G17 G19 A4 G31 G33 G34 G35 G36 A6 G38 G39 G45 G46 G48 W9 A10 G55 A13 W12 G61 G66 W14 G75 G76 G77 A20 G86 G87 G88 G9 A1 G18 G23 G25 G28 G37

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0

1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62%

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63

Page 19 of 21 63

Table 10 (continued) ID

UQ1

UQ2

UQ3

UQ4

UQ5

UQ6

UQ7

UQ8

UQ9

UQ10

UQ11

UQ12

UQ13

Total

%

G40 G43 A9 G51 G70 G72 A18 G79 G82 A22 A23 A24

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1

0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62%

Score between 60% and 70% Table 11 Usability result ID

UQ1

UQ2

UQ3

UQ4

UQ5

UQ6

UQ7

UQ8

UQ9

UQ10

UQ11

UQ12

UQ13

Total

%

G5 G12 A7 G47 A12 G62 A15 A16 G73 A21 G84 W3 W4 G29 W6 B2 A8 G52 G57 G58 A17 A19 A2 G13 G24 W7 B1 G8 W2 A11 W13

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4

54% 54% 54% 54% 54% 54% 54% 54% 54% 54% 54% 46% 46% 46% 46% 46% 46% 46% 46% 46% 46% 46% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 31% 31% 31% 31%

Score below 60%

63

Page 20 of 21

References 1. Mart´ınez-P´erez, B., de la Torre-D´ıez, I., L´opez-Coronado, M., Mobile health applications for the most prevalent conditions by the World Health Organization: review and analysis. J.Med. Internet Res. 15(6):e120, 2013. 2. Basole, R.C., and Karla, J., On the evolution of mobile platform ecosystem structure and strategy. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 3(5):313–322, 2011. 3. Godwin-Jones, R., technologies, Emerging Mobile apps for language learning. Lang.Lear. Tech. 15(2):2–11, 2011. 4. Seifried, E., Klueter, H., Weidmann, C., Staudenmaier, T., Schrezenmeier, H., Henschler, R., Greinacher, A., Mueller, M., How much blood is needed? Vox Sang. 100(1):10–21, 2011. 5. Aungst, T., Clauson, K., Misra, S., Lewis, T., Husain, I., How to identify, assess and utilise mobile medical applications in clinical practice. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 68(2):155–162, 2014. 6. Kay, M. mHealth: New horizons for health through mobile technologies, Vol. 3 of Global Observatory for eHealth series: World Health Organization, 2011. 7. Bert, F., Giacometti, M., Gualano, M.R., Siliquini, R., Smartphones and health promotion: a review of the evidence. J. Med. Syst. 38(1):1–11, 2014. 8. Franko, O.I., and Tirrell, T.F., Smartphone app use among medical providers in ACGME training programs. J. Med. Syst. 36(5):3135– 3139, 2012. 9. Kharrazi, H., Chisholm, R., VanNasdale, D., Thompson, B., Mobile personal health records: An evaluation of features and functionality. Int. J. Med. Inform. 81(9):579–593, 2012. 10. Carrion, I., Fern´andez-Alem´an, J.L., Toval, A., Personal health records: New means to safely handle health data? IEEE Comput. 45(11):27–33, 2012. ˚ 11. Chomutare, T., Fernandez-Luque, L., Arsand, E., Hartvigsen, G., Features of mobile diabetes applications: review of the literature and analysis of current applications compared against evidence-based guidelines. J.Med.Internet Res. 13(3):e65, 2011. 12. Joe, J., and Demiris, G., adults, Older, mobile phones for health A review. J. Biomed. Inform. 46(5):947–954, 2013. 13. Besaleva, L.I., and Weaver, A.C., CrowdHelp: M-health application for emergency response improvement through crowdsourced and sensor-detected information.In: Wireless Telecommunications Symposium, WTS, 2014, pp. 1–5. 14. Cheng-Chi, L., Che-Wei, H., Yan-Ming, L., Vasilakos, A., An enhanced mobile-healthcare emergency system based on extended chaotic maps. J. Med. Syst. 37(5):1–12, 2013. 15. Tian, Y., Tian-Shu, Z., Yao, Q., Zhang, M., Jing-Song, L., Use of an agent-based simulation model to evaluate a mobile-based system for supporting emergency evacuation decision making. J. Med. Syst. 38(12):1–13, 2014. 16. Tian, Y., Tian-Shu, Z., Wang, Y., Zhang, M., Jing-Song, L., Design and development of a mobile-based system for supporting mergency triage decision making. J. Med. Syst. 38(6): 1–10, 2014. 17. Iwaya, L., Gomes, M., M. Simpl´ıcio, T., Carvalho, C.K., Dominicini, R., Sakuragui, R., Rebelo, M.S., Gutierrez, M., N¨aslund, M., H˚akansson, P., Mobile health in emerging countries: A survey of research initiatives in Brazil. Int. J. Med. Inform. 82(5):283–298, 2013. 18. Sadasivam, R.S., Gathibandhe, V., Tanik, M.M., Willig, J.H., Development of a point-of-care HIV/AIDS medication dosing support system using the Android mobile platform. J.Med. Syst.D 36(3):1583–1591, 2012. 19. Gibbs, W.N., and Corcoran, P., Blood safety in developing countries. Vox Sang. 67(4):377–381, 1994.

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63 20. Alter, H.J., Stramer, S.L., Dodd, R.Y., Emerging infectious diseases that threaten the blood supply. Semin. Hematol. 44(1):32–41, 2007. 21. World Health Organization: Global Database on Blood Safety. Summary Report 2011 [cited June 2014] http://goo.gl/TpwreS, 2011. 22. Williamson, L.M., and Devine, D.V., Challenges in the management of the blood supply. The Lancet 381(9880):1866–1875, 2013. 23. Tagny, C.T., Owusu-Ofori, S., Mbanya, D., Deneys, V., The blood donor in sub-Saharan Africa: a review. Transfusion Medicine 20(1):1–10, 2010. 24. NHS, Blood and transplant matters.In: NHS Blood an Transplant no. 38, 2013, http:// goo.gl/ pNZ6jk. 25. WHO: Blood donor selection: guidelines on assessing donor suitability for blood donation, World Health Organization, http://goo.gl/ sXCu6o, 2013. 26. France, C.R., France, J.L., Kowalsky, J.M., Cornett, T.L., Education in donation coping strategies encourages individuals to give blood: further evaluation of a donor recruitment brochure. Transfus. 50(1):85–91, 2010. 27. France, C.R., France, J.L., Wissel, M.E., Kowalsky, J.M., Bolinger, E.M., Huckins, J.L., Enhancing blood donation intentions using multimedia donor education materials. Transfus. 51(8):1796– 1801, 2011. 28. Khan, A.R., and Qureshi, M.S., Web-based information system for blood donation. Int. J. of Digit. Content Techn. Appl. 3(2):137–142, 2009. 29. J. D. Mart´ın-Santana, A.B. rli-P. alacio., Achieving donor repetition and motivation by block leaders among current blood donors. Transf. Apheres. Sci. 47(3):337–343, 2012. 30. Hassan, O.M.M. Mobile blood donation application, Ph.D. thesis http:// etd.uum.edu.my/ 2353/ : University Utara Malaysia, 2010. 31. Katz, L.M., Cumming, P.D., Wallace, E.L. Computer-based blood donor screening: a status report, Transfusion Medicine Reviews 21 (1) (2007) 13–25. 32. France, C.R., France, J.L., Kowalsky, J.M., Copley, D.M., Lewis, K.N., Ellis, G.D., McGlone, S.T., Sinclair, K.S., A web-based approach to blood donor preparation. Transf. 53(2): 328–336, 2013. 33. Zapata, B.C., Fern´andez-Alem´an, J.L., Idri, A., Toval, A., Empirical studies on usability of mHealth apps: A systematic literature review. J. Med. Syst. 39(2):1–19, 2015. 34. Mart´ınez-P´erez, B., de la Torre-D´ıez, I., Candelas-Plasencia, S., L´opez-Coronado, M., Development and evaluation of tools for measuring the Quality of Experience (QoE) in mHealth applications. J. Med. Syst. 37(5):1–8, 2013. 35. ISO: 9241–11 standard. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 11:Guidance on usability (1998). 36. ISO: 13407 standard. Human-centred design processes for interactive systems (1999). 37. ISO: 9241–210 standard. Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (2010). 38. ISO/IEC–9126: standard. Software Product Evaluation – Quality Characteristics and Guidelines for Their Use (1999). 39. ISO/IEC: 25010 standard. Systems and software engineering – Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – System and software quality models. (2011). 40. de Lima Salgado, A., and Freire, A.P., Heuristic evaluation of mobile usability: A mapping study.In: Human-Computer Interaction,Applications and Services Springer, pp. 178–188, 2014. 41. Gallant L. M., Boone, G., LaRoche, C.S., Mobile usability: State of the art and implications, Interdisciplinary Mobile, Media and Communications. Soc.Polit. Econ. Implications, 344, 2014.

J Med Syst (2015) 39:63 42. Nayebi, F., Desharnais, J.M., Abran, A., The state of the art of mobile application usability evaluation.In: 25th IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical & Computer Engineering, pp. 1–4, 2012. 43. Flood, R.D., and Duce, D., Usability of mobile applications: Literature review and rationale for a new usability model. Journal of Interaction Science 1(1):1–16, 2013. 44. Nielsen, J., and Budiu, R. Mobile Usability: F¨ur iPhone, iPad, Android. H¨uthig Jehle Rehm: Kindle, 2013. 45. Whitlock L. A., and McLaughlin, A.C., Identifying usability problems of blood glucose tracking apps for older adult users.In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 56, SAGE Publications, 2012, pp.115–119. 46. Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B.A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Khalil, M., Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. J. Syst. Softw. 80(4):571– 583, 2007. 47. Android developers reference Android design guidelines(2014). http://developer.android.com/design/index.html. 48. iOS developer library iOS human interface guidelines (2014) [cited June 2014]. http://goo.gl/CPuZLE. 49. Blackberry stages of application design (2014) [cited June 2014]. http://goo.gl/cPTEW. 50. Windows Store app design. guidance for designing great apps (2014) [cited June 2014]. http://goo.gl/vnXf9n. 51. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P., Kleijnen, J., Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration, Annals of Internal Medicine 151 (4) (2009) W–65–W–94. 52. Develop HTML5 Web Apps for an open marketplace [cited Feb 2015]. https://marketplace.firefox.com/developers. 53. Stone, P.W., Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice. Appl. Nurs. Res. 15(3):197–198, 2002. 54. Zapata, B.C., Ni˜nirola, A.H., Idri, A., Fern´andez-Alem´an, J.L., Toval, A., Mobile PHRs compliance with Android and iOS usability guidelines. J. Med. Syst. 38(8):1–16, 2014. 55. Dougherty, J., Kohavi, R., Sahami, M., Supervised and unsupervised discretization of continuous features.In: International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML, 1995, pp. 194–202. 56. Gronli, T.-M., Hansen, J., Ghinea, G., Younas, M., Mobile application platform heterogeneity: Android vs Windows Phone vs iOS vs Firefox OS.In: IEEE 28th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications, AINA, 2014, pp. 635–641. 57. Migrating to Android Studio [cited Feb 2015]. http://goo.gl/ qItvaz. 58. Swift. A new programming language for iOS and OS X [cited Feb 2015]. https://developer.apple.com/swift. 59. Goadrich, M.H., and Rogers, M.P. Smart smartphone development: iOS versus Android, in: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, 2011, pp. 607–612. 60. Developer tools - Android developers (2014) [cited Sep 2014]. https://developer.android.com/tools/index.html. 61. Platform choice - Blackberry developer (2014) [cited June 2014]. http://developer.blackberry.com. 62. Blackberry tools for Android development (2014) [cited June 2014]. http://developer.blackberry.com/android/.

Page 21 of 21 63 63. Retscher, G., and Hecht, T., Investigation of location capabilities of four different smartphones for LBS navigation applications.In: International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation, IPIN, 2012, pp. 1–6. 64. Houts, P.S., Doak, C.C., Doak, L.G., Loscalzo, M.J. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence, Patient Education and Counseling 61 (2) (2006)173–190. 65. Rodrigues, P., and Santos, H., Health users’ perception of biometric authentication technologies.In: 26th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS), IEEE, 2013, pp. 320–325. 66. Bartlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W., Higgins, C.C., Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research, Information Technology. Learn. Perform. J. 19(1):43, 2001. 67. Abran, A., and Bourque, P. SWEBOK Guide to the software engineering Body of Knowledge: IEEE Computer Society, 2004. 68. IEEE: 830 standard, IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications (1998). 69. ISO/IEC: 25030 standard. Software engineering – Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)–Quality requirements (2007). 70. Albert, W., and Tullis, T. Measuring the user experience: collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics, Newnes, 2013. 71. Span, M., Hettinga, M., Vernooij-Dassen, Eefsting, M.J., Smits, C., Involving people with dementia in the development of supportive I T applications. A systematic review, Ageing research reviews 12(2):535–551, 2013. 72. Price, M., Yuen, E.K., Goetter, E.M., Herbert, J.D., Forman, E.M., Acierno, R., Ruggiero, K.J. mHealth: a mechanism to deliver more accessible, more effective mental health care, Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 21 (5) (2014)427–436. 73. Allen, S., Graupera, V., Lundrigan, L. Pro smartphone crossplatform development: iPhone, Blackberry: Apress, 2010. 74. Heitk¨otter, H., Hanschke, S., Majchrzak, T.A., Evaluating crossplatform development approaches for mobile applications.In: Web Information Systems and Technologies, Springer, 2013, pp. 120–138. 75. Jackson, W., Android UI design tools: Setting up your Android development system.In: Pro Android UI, Springer, 2014, pp. 3–28. 76. Feiler, J. iOS App Development For Dummies: Wiley, 2014. 77. Paries, J. Windows Phone 7 Applications with Expression Blend: Focal Press, 2013. 78. Ludin, A. Learn BlackBerry, 10 App Development A CascadesDriven Approach, Apress, 2014. 79. Toval, A., Carrillo-de Gea, J.M., Fern´andez-Alem´an, J.L., Toval, R., Learning systems development using reusable standard-based requirements catalogs.In: IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, 2011, pp. 907–912. 80. S´anchez-Henarejos, A., Fern´andez-Alem´an, J.L., Toval, A., Hern´andez-Hern´andez, I., S´anchez-Garc´ıa, A.B., Carrillo-de Gea, J.M., A guide to good practice for information security in the handling of personal health data by health personnel in ambulatory care facilities. Atenci´on Primaria 46(4):214–222, 2014. 81. Cos, J.A., Toval, R., Toval, A., Fern´andez-Alem´an, J.L., Carrillode Gea, J.M., Nicolas, J., Internationalization requirements for elearning audit purposes.In: IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, 2012, pp. 1–6.