Content validation and usability of an application for cornea donor selection
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26694/reufpi.v15i1.6598Keywords:
Donor Selection, Corneal Transplantation, Mobile Applications, Usability, Validation StudyAbstract
Objective: to validate the content and usability of a mobile application prototype aimed at the identification and selection of potential cornea donors. Method: a methodological study based on Interaction Design, for the development of a mobile application prototype focused on the identification of potential cornea donors. Content and usability validation was carried out by 14 expert judges from the health and technology fields, using an instrument adapted from the literature and the System Usability Scale (SUS). The Content Validity Index (CVI) was used to analyze agreement among the judges regarding the content, as well as to calculate the SUS scale for usability evaluation. Results: the prototype achieved a global CVI of 0.97 among health specialists and 0.95 among technology specialists. The mean SUS score was 87.14 points, classified as “best imaginable”, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86. The judges provided specific suggestions to improve layout and navigation flow. Conclusion: the prototype demonstrated clarity, functionality, and high usability, showing potential to support healthcare professionals in the identification, selection, and notification of potential cornea donors, contributing to an increase [...]
References
1. Hashemian MN, Zia MJ, Khorrami-Nejad M, Abed QS, Hashemian H. Long-term outcomes of corneal transplantation: a review of 8,378 patients. BMC Ophthalmol. 2025;25:39. doi:10.1186/s12886-024-03826-7.
2. Ribas LGA, Viana AFG, Ribeiro ALN, Arndt CG, Diamante AC, Marcolino GJ, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on corneal transplantation: challenges and obstacles. Rev Eletr Acervo Saúde. 2024;24:e15904. doi:10.25248/reas.e15904.2024.
3. Romano V, Passaro ML, Ruzza A, Parekh M, Airaldi M, Levis HJ, et al. Quality assurance in corneal transplants: donor cornea assessment and oversight. Surv Ophthalmol. 2024;69:465–82. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2023.12.002.
4. Magalhães ACM, Carvalho EAP, Boteon JE, Silva LCS, Faria TBC, Cruz RCSC, et al. Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ocular tissue donations for transplants in a university hospital. Braz J Transplant. 2024;27. doi:10.53855/bjt.v27i1.553.
5. Silva ICN, Pimentel RRS, Moraes ELD, Santos MJ. Family refusal for corneal donation for transplantation: associated factors and trends. Acta Paul Enferm. 2023;37:eAO00001471. doi:10.37689/acta-ape/2024AO00001471.
6. Brazilian Association of Organ Transplantation. Numerical data of organ donation and transplants performed by state and institution in the period: January–September 2024 [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Oct 15]. Available from: https://site.abto.org.br/.
7. Gain P, Jullienne R, He Z, Aldossary M, Acquart S, Cognasse F, et al. Global survey of corneal transplantation and eye banking. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134:167–73. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.4776.
8. Szkodny D, Wróblewska-Czajka E, Stryja M, Gara F, Wylęgała E. Exploring the potential of an eye tissue donor reporting app in enhancing the procurement of corneal donors: mixed methods observational study. JMIR Form Res. 2024;8:e50398. doi:10.2196/50398.
9. Colby K. Update on corneal transplant in 2021. JAMA. 2021;325:1886. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17382.
10. Bezerra CAG, Melo LRS, Feitosa DVS, Linhares SSM, Rodrigues IDCV, Otero LM, et al. Relevant criteria for reporting potential corneal donors: an integrative review. Rev Eletr Acervo Saúde. 2024;24:e14376. doi:10.25248/reas.e14376.2024.
11. Szkodny D, Wróblewska-Czajka E, Stryja M, Gara F, Wylęgała E. A web application for reporting eye donors: idea, development and doctor’s opinion. Transplant Proc. 2023;55:2003–8. doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2023.07.025.
12. Carvalho BM, Furtado MCC, Chinalia GT, Caritá EC, Sanguino GZ. Baby Date: a mobile application for teaching nursing care to newborns in primary care. Rev Latino-Am Enfermagem. 2024;32:e4164. doi:10.1590/1518-8345.7022.4164.
13. Maqbool B, Herold S. Potential effectiveness and efficiency issues in usability evaluation within digital health: a systematic literature review. J Syst Softw. 2024;208:111881. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.111881.
14. Tao D, Liu K. How do self-motivation and social motivation contribute to consumers’ acceptance of m-health services? Health Policy Technol. 2024;13:100878. doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2024.100878.
15. Alhawatmeh H, Aljarrah M, Hweidi IM, Al-Nsair N, Alyahya MS, Abuhammad S. Boosting knowledge, attitudes, and practices: an experimental controlled study evaluating the effectiveness of m-health training on antimicrobial resistance for hemodialysis nurses. SAGE Open Med. 2025;13:20503121251318153. doi:10.1177/20503121251318153.
16. Alipour J, Mehdipour Y, Zakerabasali S, Karimi A. Nurses’ perspectives on using mobile health applications in southeastern Iran: awareness, attitude, and obstacles. PLoS One. 2025;20:e0316631. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316631.
17. Chandran VP, Balakrishnan A, Rashid M, Kulyadi GP, Khan S, Devi ES, et al. Mobile applications in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0265927. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265927.
18. Chumkasian W, Fernandez R, Win KT, Petsoglou C, Lord H. Adaptation of the MAUQ and usability evaluation of a mobile phone–based system to promote eye donation. Int J Med Inform. 2021;151:104462. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104462.
19. Rogers Y, Sharp H, Preece J. Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. 3rd ed. Bookman; 2013.
20. Melo ESJ, Silva MJN, Silva APN, Braga HFGM, Oliveira BSB, Monteiro FPM, et al. Criteria for selecting experts in the evaluation of educational technologies in nursing: integrative review. Rev Rene. 2024;25:e92942. doi:10.15253/2175-6783.20242592942.
21. Perdigão RLD. Development and evaluation of a mobile application usability for use in the perioperative period of children undergoing pediatric kidney transplantation [dissertation]. Fortaleza: Universidade Estadual do Ceará; 2022.
22. Tavares VMB. Development and validation of a mobile health application for home caregivers managing gastric tubes [dissertation]. Fortaleza: Universidade de Fortaleza; 2018.
23. Saboia DM. Construction and validation of an educational app for preventing urinary incontinence in women after childbirth [dissertation]. Fortaleza: Universidade Federal do Ceará; 2017.",
24. Lourenço DF, Valentim EC, Lopes MHBM. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the System Usability Scale to Brazilian Portuguese. Aquichan. 2022;22:1–16. doi:10.5294/aqui.2022.22.2.8.
25. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: principles and methods. 7th ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2016.",
26. Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud. 2009;4:114–23.
27. Brooke J. SUS: a retrospective. J Usability Stud. 2013;8:29–40.
28. Lourenço DF, Valentim EC, Lopes MHBM. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the System Usability Scale to Brazilian Portuguese. Aquichan. 2022;22:1–16. doi:10.5294/aqui.2022.22.2.8.
29. Bonett DG, Wright TA. Cronbach’s alpha reliability: interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. J Organ Behav. 2015;36:3–15. doi:10.1002/job.1960.
30. Santos JRFM, Lima MA, Machado ALG, Oliveira EAR, Brito AA, Veloso ML, et al. Building m-health technology to promote breastfeeding. Rev Enferm UFPI. 2025;14:e4740. doi:10.26694/reufpi.v14i1.4740.",
31. Ribeiro YC, Louro TQ, Barreto ACM, Gobatto M, Palermo MVA, Silva CVS. Semioapp application validity for teaching skin semiology in older adults. Rev Enferm UFPI. 2023;11:e3148. doi:10.26694/reufpi.v11i1.3148.
32. Dixon J, Lazenby M. Expert panel content validation for evidence-based projects: adaptation of the content validity index [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2025 Mar 15]. Available from: https://scholarlycommons.library.emory.edu.
33. Silva LP, Torres FAF, Santos AJS, Soares LG, Bezerra AM, Nascimento MNR. Construction of a mobile application as a strategy for medication adherence in the elderly population. Rev Enferm UFPI. 2023;12:e2992. doi:10.26694/reufpi.v12i1.2992.
34. Tao D, Shao F, Wang H, Yan M, Qu X. Integrating usability and social cognitive theories with the technology acceptance model to understand young users’ acceptance of a health information portal. Health Informatics J. 2020;26:1347–62. doi:10.1177/1460458219879337.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rev Enferm UFPI
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à REUFPI o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attibution BY 4.0 que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
