Evaluación de la usabilidad de la aplicación móvil Quali+ para personas con hipertensión arterial

Silva, Louyse Victória Ferreira da; Santos, Joelma Silva; Sousa, Mailson Marques de; Gouveia, Bernadete de Lourdes André; Oliveira, Simone Helena dos Santos; Almeida, André Atanasio Maranhão; Almeida, Taciana da Costa Farias

doi:10.1590/1983-1447.2023.20230058.en

person Louyse Victória Ferreira da Silva

Formal analysis · Data curation · Writing - original draft · Writing - review and editing · Investigation · Validation · Visualization

schoolUniversidade Federal de Campina Grande (UFCG). Unidade Acadêmica de Enfermagem. Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brasil.

0000-0002-3935-0943

person Joelma Silva Santos

Formal analysis · Data curation · Writing - original draft · Writing - review and editing · Investigation · Validation · Visualization

schoolUniversidade Federal de Campina Grande (UFCG). Unidade Acadêmica de Enfermagem. Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brasil.

0000-0001-8554-1268

person Mailson Marques de Sousa

Formal analysis · Conceptualization · Writing - review and editing · Methodology · Validation · Visualization

schoolUniversidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB). Centro de Ciências da Saúde. Departamento de Enfermagem Clínica. João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brasil.

0000-0002-8099-4310

person Bernadete de Lourdes André Gouveia

Conceptualization · Writing - review and editing

schoolUniversidade Federal de Campina Grande (UFCG). Unidade Acadêmica de Enfermagem. Cuité, Paraíba, Brasil.

0000-0001-8133-6048

person Simone Helena dos Santos Oliveira

Conceptualization · Writing - review and editing

schoolUniversidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB). Escola Técnica de Saúde. João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brasil.

0000-0002-9556-1403

person André Atanasio Maranhão Almeida

Writing - review and editing · Software

schoolInstituto Federal da Paraíba (IFPB). Departamento de Análise e Desenvolvimento de Sistemas. Esperança, Paraíba, Brasil.

0000-0003-1442-3998

person Taciana da Costa Farias Almeida

Project management · Formal analysis · Acquisition of funding · Conceptualization · Data curation · Writing - original draft · Writing - review and editing · Investigation · Methodology · Ressources · Supervision · Validation · Visualization

schoolUniversidade Federal de Campina Grande (UFCG). Unidade Acadêmica de Enfermagem. Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brasil.

0000-0002-9390-9656

personCorresponding author: Taciana da Costa Farias Almeida E-mail:
taciana.costa@professor.ufcg.edu.br

Associate editor:

Luccas Melo de Souza

Editor-in-chief:

João Lucas Campos de Oliveira

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Items	Mean (SD)	Min	Max
1. I found it easy to enter data into these applications. For example, using the “etc.”	3.68 (0.56)	2	4
2. When I make a mistake it is easy to correct it.	3.59 (0.73)	2	4
3. I found the help/tips given by the app to be useful.	4.00 (0.00)	2	4
4. It was easy to find the information I needed.	3.86 (0.46)	2	4
5. I felt in charge using this app.	3.59 (0.66)	2	4
6. I found that the time taken to complete the tasks is appropriate.	3.59 (0.59)	2	4
7. It was easy to learn how to use this app.	3.77 (0.52)	2	4
8. The sequences of actions in the app match the way I normally perform them. For example, the order of buttons, data fields, etc.	3.55 (0.51)	3	4
9. It's easy to do what I want using this app.	3.73 (0.63)	2	4
10. It was easy to navigate the app's menus and screens.	3.82 (0.51)	2	4
11. The application meets my needs.	3.86 (0.35)	3	4
12. I would recommend this app to others.	3.95 (0.21)	3	4
13. Even if I was in a hurry, I would be able to perform tasks in this application.	3.50 (0.74)	2	4
14. I found the app to be consistent. For example, all functions can be performed in a similar way.	3.50 (0.67)	2	4
15. It's easy to remember how to do things on this app.	3.68 (0.64)	2	4
16. I would use this app frequently.	3.68 (0.47)	3	4
17. The organization of menus and action commands (such as buttons and links) is logical, which allows you to easily find them on the screen.	3.73 (0.45)	3	4
18. I was able to complete the tasks successfully using this app.	3.77 (0.61)	2	4
19. I enjoyed using this app.	3.82 (0.39)	3	4
20. The application provides all the information necessary to complete tasks in a clear and understandable way.	3.82 (0.39)	3	4
21. I found the app very difficult to use.	1.14 (0.56)	0	3
22. The symbols and icons are clear and intuitive.	3.77 (0.42)	3	4
23. I found the texts easy to read.	3.91 (0.29)	3	4
24. I found the app unnecessarily complex. I had to remember, research or think a lot to complete the tasks.	0.95 (0.57)	0	3
25. The terminology used in texts, labels, titles, etc. is easy to understand.	3.73 (0.93)	0	4
26. I would need someone's support to use this app.	1.64 (1.04)	1	4
27. I felt comfortable using this app.	3.77 (0.52)	2	4
28. The app behaved as I expected.	3.77 (0.42)	3	4
29. I found it frustrating to use this application	1.05 (0.21)	1	2
30. I found the various functions of the application to be well integrated.	3.82 (0.39)	3	4
31. I felt very confident using this app.	3.82 (0.50)	2	4

Participants	Age	Gender	Total SURE score	Usability level
1	52	Female	99	80
2	56	Female	108	80
3	57	Female	108	80
4	44	Female	112	80
5	42	Female	112	80
6	63	Male	95	80
7	53	Female	106	80
8	39	Female	104	80
9	50	Female	106	80
10	26	Female	112	80
11	44	Male	111	80
12	59	Female	83	80
13	69	Female	99	80
14	49	Female	109	80
15	45	Male	106	80
16	30	Female	103	80
17	64	Female	97	80
18	43	Female	112	80
19	41	Male	111	80
20	44	Female	112	80
21	52	Female	111	80
22	55	Female	113	80

[TFN1] Source: Research data.

[TFN2] SD: Standard deviation; Min.: Minimum; Max. Maximum.