International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 7 (July 2025), Pages: 173-177

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Usability of health information systems in rural and low-resource settings of Sudan

 Author(s): 

 Asim Seedahmed Ali Osman 1, *, Adil Mahmoud Mohamed Mahmoud 2

 Affiliation(s):

  1College of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Hafr Al Batin, Hafar Al Batin, Saudi Arabia
  2Deanship of E-Learning and Digital Transformation, University of Hafr Al Batin, Hafar Al Batin, Saudi Arabia

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3444-6249

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.07.017

 Abstract

Mobile devices play an important role in Health Information Systems (HIS), especially in rural and low-resource areas of Sudan, where they help improve access to and use of healthcare services. However, these devices still face major usability problems, such as difficult navigation, inconsistent interface designs, hard-to-use input methods, and poor compatibility between devices. These problems reduce the effectiveness of mobile devices in meeting the needs of underserved communities. This study examines the efficiency, effectiveness, and user satisfaction of HIS features in rural settings, using the After-Scenario Questionnaire (ASQ) to measure how well users complete tasks. A total of 113 people took part in the study, revealing specific usability patterns and ongoing difficulties. The results highlight important design and functionality issues in mobile health applications and show the urgent need for adaptable user interfaces based on user-centered design. Such interfaces would support the smooth completion of key health tasks and encourage wider use of HIS in low-resource environments.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Mobile health, Usability challenges, Rural healthcare, User satisfaction, Health information systems

 Article history

 Received 18 January 2025, Received in revised form 31 May 2025, Accepted 25 June 2025

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

All participants were informed about the objectives and procedures of the study and provided their informed consent prior to participation. They were assured of their right to withdraw from the study at any stage without any consequences. Furthermore, all data collected were anonymized to protect participants’ identities and ensure confidentiality. The study adhered to ethical standards in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Osman ASA and Mahmoud AMM (2025). Usability of health information systems in rural and low-resource settings of Sudan. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(7): 173-177

  Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

  Fig. 1  Fig. 2  Fig. 3

 Tables

  Table 1 

----------------------------------------------   

 References (18)

  1. Adler-Milstein J, Zhao W, Willard-Grace R, Knox M, and Grumbach K (2020). Electronic health records and burnout: time spent on the electronic health record after hours and message volume associated with exhaustion but not with cynicism among primary care clinicians. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 27(4): 531-538.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocz220    [Google Scholar] PMid:32016375 PMCid:PMC7647261
  2. Archer N, Lokker C, Ghasemaghaei M, and DiLiberto D (2021). eHealth implementation issues in low-resource countries: model, survey, and analysis of user experience. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(6): e23715.  https://doi.org/10.2196/23715    [Google Scholar] PMid:34142967 PMCid:PMC8277330
  3. Benson J, Brand T, Christianson L, and Lakeberg M (2023). Localisation of digital health tools used by displaced populations in low and middle-income settings: A scoping review and critical analysis of the participation revolution. Conflict and Health, 17(1): 20.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-023-00518-9    [Google Scholar] PMid:37061703 PMCid:PMC10105546
  4. Bulut A, Uzel N, Kutluay T, and Neyzi O (1991). Experiences of a health team working in a new urban settlement area in Istanbul. Journal of Community Health, 16(5): 251-258.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320333    [Google Scholar] PMid:1955576
  5. Farmer P and Kim JY (1998). Community based approaches to the control of multidrug resistant tuberculosis: Introducing “DOTS-plus.” BMJ, 317: 671.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7159.671    [Google Scholar] PMid:9728004 PMCid:PMC1113843
  6. Farmer P, Léandre F, and Mukherjee JS et al. (2001). Community-based approaches to HIV treatment in resource-poor settings. The Lancet, 358(9279): 404-409.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05550-7    [Google Scholar] PMid:11502340
  7. Harrison R, Flood D, and Duce D (2013). Usability of mobile applications: Literature review and rationale for a new usability model. Journal of Interaction Science, 1: 1.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-0827-1-1    [Google Scholar]
  8. Lewis JR (2006). Sample sizes for usability tests: Mostly math, not magic. Interactions, 13(6): 29-33.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1167948.1167973    [Google Scholar]
  9. Lippeveld T, Sauerborn R, and Bodart C (2000). Design and implementation of health information systems. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.    [Google Scholar]
  10. Magrabi F, Ammenwerth E, and Craven CK et al. (2021). Managing pandemic responses with health informatics–challenges for assessing digital health technologies. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 30(1): 56-60.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1726490    [Google Scholar] PMid:33882604 PMCid:PMC8416188
  11. Muller N, McMahon SA, and De Neve JW et al. (2020). Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a mobile health wallet for pregnancy-related health care: A qualitative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Madagascar. PLOS ONE, 15(1): e0228017.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228017    [Google Scholar] PMid:32004331 PMCid:PMC6993972
  12. Sahay S and Walsham G (2017). Information technology, innovation and human development: Hospital information systems in an Indian state. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18(2): 275-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2016.1270913    [Google Scholar]
  13. Sahay S, Sundararaman T, and Braa J (2017). Public health informatics: Designing for change-a developing country perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.  https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780198758778.003.0001    [Google Scholar]
  14. Sanders C, Gibson K, Byrd AR, Markosyan T, and Lamm AJ (2023). Exploring the social media health information seeking patterns of rural residents to provide communication strategies for extension. Journal of Applied Communications, 107(4): 1.  https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2499    [Google Scholar]
  15. WB (2007). World development indicators. World Bank, London, UK.  
  16. WHO (2007). World health statistics. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 
  17. WHO (2024). WHO results report 2023: Notable health achievements and calls for concerted drive toward sustainable development goals. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 
  18. Winter A, Haux R, Ammenwerth E, Brigl B, Hellrung N, and Jahn F (2010). Quality of health information systems. In: Winter A, Haux R, Ammenwerth E, Brigl B, Hellrung N, and Jahn F (Eds.), Health information systems: 201-236. Springer, London, UK.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-441-8_8    [Google Scholar]