Actionable companion · Motivation & engagement

Learning with agency: Evaluating an App-Based Intervention for Preventing Firearm Violence and Substance Use in Young Black Boys and Men: Usability Evaluation Study

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not claims or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.

Evidence and context

Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Secondary school. Verify the participant population and task before transferring the findings.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Background Young Black male individuals are 24 times more likely to be impacted by firearm injuries and homicides but encounter significant barriers to care and service disengagement, even in program-rich cities across the United States, leaving them worryingly underserved. Existing community-based interventions focus on secondary and tertiary prevention after firearm violence has occurred and are typically deployed in emergency settings. To address these service and uptake issues, we developed BrotherlyACT—a nurse-led, culturally tailored, multicomponent app—to reduce the risk and effects of firearm injuries and homicides and to improve access to precrisis and mental health resources for young Black male individuals (aged 15-24 years) in low-resource and high-violence settings. Grounded in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, the app provides life skills coaching, safety planning, artificial intelligence–powered talk therapy, and zip code–based service connections directly to young Black male individuals at risk for violence and substance use. Objective The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the usability, engagement, and satisfaction of BrotherlyACT among target young Black male users and mobile health (mHealth) experts, using a combination of formative usability testing (UT) and heuristic evaluation (HE). Methods Using a convergent mixed methods approach, we evaluated the BrotherlyACT app using HE by 8 mHealth specialists and conducted UT with 23 participants, comprising 15 young Black male users (aged 15-24 years), alongside 4 adult internal team testers and 4 high school students who were part of our youth advisory board. UT included the System Usability Scale and thematic analysis of think-aloud interviews and cognitive walkthroughs. HE involved mHealth experts applying the Nielsen severity rating scale (score 0-3, with 3 indicating a major issue). All testing was conducted via REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) and Zoom or in person. Results Qualitative usability issues were categorized into 8 thematic groups, revealing only minor usability concerns. The app achieved an average System Usability Scale score of 79, equivalent to an A-minus grade and placing it in the 85th percentile, indicating near-excellent usability. Similarly, the HE by testers identified minor and cosmetic usability issues, with a median severity score of 1 across various heuristics (on a scale of 0-3), indicating minimal impact on user experience. Overall, minor adjustments were recommended to enhance navigation, customization, and guidance for app users, while the app’s visual and functional design was generally well received. Conclusions BrotherlyACT was considered highly usable and acceptable. Testers in the UT stage gave the app a positive overall rating and emphasized that several key improvements were made. Findings from our UT prompted revisions to the app prototype. Moving forward, a pilot study with a pretest-posttest design will evaluate the app’s efficacy in community health and emergency care settings. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/43842

A 90-day district pilot

1. Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
2. Days 16–30 · Design. Ask learners to attempt a problem unaided, compare an agent hint, explain a revision and verify the final reasoning against a trusted source. Make the permitted use explicit for each assignment. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
3. Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
4. Days 61–90 · Decide. Measure unaided transfer and delayed retention, calibration of confidence and the ability to identify an incorrect AI explanation. Record whether help-seeking becomes answer copying. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Chuka Emezue; Dale Dan-Irabor; Andrew Froilan; Aaron Dunlap; Pablo Zamora; Sarah Negron; Janiya Simmons; Jayla Watkins; Wrenetha A Julion; Niranjan S Karnik. Evaluating an App-Based Intervention for Preventing Firearm Violence and Substance Use in Young Black Boys and Men: Usability Evaluation Study. JMIR Formative Research (2024-11-26). https://doi.org/10.2196/60918

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.