e.g. mhealth
Search Results (1 to 9 of 9 Results)
Download search results: CSV END BibTex RIS
Skip search results from other journals and go to results- 2 JMIR mHealth and uHealth
- 2 Journal of Medical Internet Research
- 1 JMIR AI
- 1 JMIR Dermatology
- 1 JMIR Formative Research
- 1 JMIR Medical Informatics
- 1 JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies
- 0 Medicine 2.0
- 0 Interactive Journal of Medical Research
- 0 iProceedings
- 0 JMIR Research Protocols
- 0 JMIR Human Factors
- 0 JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
- 0 JMIR Serious Games
- 0 JMIR Mental Health
- 0 JMIR Preprints
- 0 JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology
- 0 JMIR Medical Education
- 0 JMIR Cancer
- 0 JMIR Challenges
- 0 JMIR Diabetes
- 0 JMIR Biomedical Engineering
- 0 JMIR Data
- 0 JMIR Cardio
- 0 Journal of Participatory Medicine
- 0 JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting
- 0 JMIR Aging
- 0 JMIR Perioperative Medicine
- 0 JMIR Nursing
- 0 JMIRx Med
- 0 JMIRx Bio
- 0 JMIR Infodemiology
- 0 Transfer Hub (manuscript eXchange)
- 0 JMIR Neurotechnology
- 0 Asian/Pacific Island Nursing Journal
- 0 Online Journal of Public Health Informatics
- 0 JMIR XR and Spatial Computing (JMXR)
Mobile Apps and Wearable Devices for Cardiovascular Health: Narrative Review
reviewsQuality Evaluation and Descriptive Analysis/Reviews of Multiple Existing Mobile Apps
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2025;13:e65782
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Of the remaining apps, reviews were extracted using the Export Comments website. Since several apps contained only few reviews and other apps contained hundreds of reviews, the authors restricted the number of exported reviews to only the most recent 50 reviews in Google Play and 50 reviews in the Apple App Store. Although this restricted the available data, it allowed results to be more balanced toward the apps generally, rather than app-specific for the most widely reviewed apps.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2025;13:e63148
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
We conducted a three-step user-centered design process [14] to develop the CDS tool for LBP informed by best practices [15] in developing such tools: (1) identify clinical requirements based on our prior published reviews of the evidence for LBP diagnosis and treatment; (2) iteratively identify user requirements, create wireframes, and develop a working prototype; and (3) test usability as part of a preliminary assessment (Figure 1).
JMIR Form Res 2025;9:e66666
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Approaches for the Use of AI in Workplace Health Promotion and Prevention: Systematic Scoping Review
In OSH-related disciplines, previous reviews have focused on risk assessment or detection related to physical ergonomics [26], occupational physical fatigue [27], or core body temperature [28]. Other reviews explored the evidence of AI in F-related areas, such as vocational rehabilitation [29] and functional capacity evaluation [30]. In health promotion in general, 1 review evaluates the use of chatbots to increase health-related behavior but does not focus on the workplace setting [31].
JMIR AI 2024;3:e53506
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
The Potential of Exercise on Lifestyle and Skin Function: Narrative Review
reviews literature reviews narrative reviewsReviews in Dermatology
JMIR Dermatol 2024;7:e51962
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Reports on hospital stays posted on the most commonly used German hospital rating website Klinikbewertungen (Clinic Reviews) [20] were included if written between March 2020 and September 2021. This time period represents the phase in which initial hygiene protection standards (eg, mandatory masks, distance regulations, test obligation) were implemented and maintained across German rehabilitation clinics [21].
JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2023;10:e39512
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Reviews were then labeled according to the dominant topic. The dominant topic was defined by the LDA model, predicting the percentage contribution of that topic to be ≥50%. The reviews that did not have any topic that contributed ≥50% were not included in the following analysis.
The corpus was divided into two subcorpora, the first one being negative-sentiment–scoring reviews and the second one being any positive-sentiment–scoring reviews.
JMIR Med Inform 2022;10(4):e29385
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Data Quality Issues With Physician-Rating Websites: Systematic Review
Prior studies that examined data quality of patient-reported reviews and ratings were included in this literature review.
J Med Internet Res 2020;22(9):e15916
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Gender, Soft Skills, and Patient Experience in Online Physician Reviews: A Large-Scale Text Analysis
Most studies of online physician reviews have focused on portals such as Health Grades [10], Rate MDs [11], Vitals [12], and Yelp [13]. Studies tend to have a small sample size, analyzing approximately 5400 reviews [6]. Many studies aim to understand the factors that influence quantitative physician ratings. The qualitative analysis of 712 reviews by López et al [5] established thematic categories that tended to appear in reviews.
J Med Internet Res 2020;22(7):e14455
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS