Browsing by Author "Leem, Jaechan"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    PDK4 Augments ER–Mitochondria Contact to Dampen Skeletal Muscle Insulin Signaling During Obesity
    (American Diabetes Association, 2019-03) Thoudam, Themis; Ha, Chae-Myeong; Leem, Jaechan; Chanda, Dipanjan; Park, Jong-Seok; Kim, Hyo-Jeong; Jeon, Jae-Han; Choi, Yeon-Kyung; Liangpunsakul, Suthat; Huh, Yang Hoon; Kwon, Tae-Hwan; Park, Keun-Gyu; Harris, Robert A.; Park, Kyu-Sang; Rhee, Hyun-Woo; Lee, In-Kyu; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Recent evidence in mobile health has demonstrated that, in some cases, apps are an effective way to improve health care delivery. Health care interventions delivered via mobile technology have demonstrated both practicality and affordability. Lately, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions delivered over the internet have also shown a meaningful impact on patients with anxiety and depression. Objective: Given the growing proliferation of smartphones and the trust in apps to support improved health behaviors and outcomes, we were interested in comparing a mobile app with Web-based methods for the delivery of CBT. This study aimed to compare the usability of a CBT mobile app called MoodTrainer with an evidence-based website called MoodGYM. Methods: We used convenience sampling to recruit 30 students from a large Midwestern university and randomly assigned them to either the MoodGYM or MoodTrainer user group. The trial period ran for 2 weeks, after which the students completed a self-assessment survey based on Nielsen heuristics. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the survey results from the 2 groups. We also compared the number of modules attempted or completed and the time spent on CBT strategies. Results: The results indicate that the MoodTrainer app received a higher usability score when compared with MoodGYM. Overall, 87% (13/15) of the participants felt that it was easy to navigate through the MoodTrainer app compared with 80% (12/15) of the MoodGYM participants. All MoodTrainer participants agreed that the app was easy to use and did not require any external assistance, whereas only 67% (10/15) had the same opinion for MoodGYM. Furthermore, 67% (10/15) of the MoodTrainer participants found that the navigation controls were easy to locate compared with 80% (12/15) of the MoodGYM participants. MoodTrainer users, on average, completed 2.5 modules compared with 1 module completed by MoodGYM users. Conclusions: As among the first studies to directly compare the usability of a mobile app-based CBT with smartphone-specific features against a Web-based CBT, there is an opportunity for app-based CBT as, at least in our limited trial, it was more usable and engaging. The study was limited to evaluate usability only and not the clinical effectiveness of the app.