Marco Kalz*, Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies (CELSTEC), Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, Netherlands Niklas Lenssen, University Hospital Aachen, Department of Anaesthesiology, Aachen, Germany Marc Felzen, University Hospital Aachen, Department of Anaesthesiology, Aachen, Germany Bernardo Tabuenca, Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies (CELSTEC), Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, Netherlands Marcus Specht, Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies (CELSTEC), Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, Netherlands Max Skorning, Medical advisory service of social health insurance, Essen, Germany Track: Research Presentation Topic: Mobile & Tablet Health Applications Presentation Type: Oral presentation Submission Type: Single Presentation Building: Mermaid Room: Room 3 - Upper River Room Date: 2013-09-23 02:00 PM – 03:30 PM Last modified: 2013-09-25 Free Full Paper

If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL).

Background: Several mobile applications to train knowledge or skills for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) have recently been developed and published in the two largest stores for mobile applications. Since there is no quality control provided for mobile apps published in these stores, it is questionable if these apps deliver on the one hand sufficient quality with respect to accordance to current medical guideline recommendations and on the other hand are designed with a high usability. To date, there is no study available that assesses the quality of the apps systematically.

Objective: Therefore we had the objective to assess the quality and usability of mobile apps for resuscitation support and training available in the two largest mobile application stores (Apple App Store & Android Market).

Methods: We have chosen a mixed-method evaluation. Mobile applications for CPR have been systematically collected via the search interfaces of the app stores. In addition, search has been conducted via Google.com. Only apps have been included which are not specifically designed for babies or animals. Two emergency physicians reviewed these apps in terms of criteria like functionality, conformity with regulations, target group and language. In addition the experts provided a quality rating on an ordinal scale from 0 – 10. To be included in the next step of the evaluation three criteria have been set by the experts: “Training feature”, “Conformity to ERC/AHA 2010 BLS Guidelines”, “Integrated Emergency Call”. In total 13 apps haven been evaluated by laymen users regarding usability and hedonic quality. For the usability evaluation 14 volunteers have each evaluated 4-5 apps via the system-usability scale (SUS) and the ReactionDeck application for hedonic quality evaluation.

Results: The search and selection procedure has resulted in a total number of 46 mobile applications for resuscitation training and support. The experts involved in the first evaluation phase show substantial agreements for all quality ratings. Approximately a third of the apps (n=16) follow current guidelines. Nearly 75% of the tested apps (n=34) include emergency support, 13 offer direct access to an emergency call. In total 13 apps have been selected to be included in the next step of the evaluation. Only 5 of these apps have been rated as potentially useful and thus received a mean SUS score above average (SUS score > 68). These results are also confirmed by the hedonic quality results.

Conclusions: While there are many apps available for CPR training and support, only 5 apps show high usability and appealing hedonic quality for laymen. CPR apps hold the important possibility to improve layperson CPR and encourage them to act in case of a cardiac arrest. Further research about the design, educational aspects and medical outcomes are necessary to benefit from these possibilities.