Field test of two mobile apps for commercial fishing safety: Feedback from fishing vessel captains

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Unique hazards make commercial fishing a hazardous occupation. Effective safety measures exist, but numerous barriers hinder their adoption. Two mobile apps aim to make performing crucial safety practices easier: the Small Craft Motion Program (SCraMP), which provides vessel stability information, and FVdrills, which provides checklists for running safety drills.

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study was to obtain feedback from commercial fishing captains who tested SCraMP or FVdrills for its usefulness during typical fishing operations.

METHODS:

A convenience sample of commercial fishing captains with iOS devices tested either FVdrills or SCraMP. After one month, participants provided feedback via online questionnaire. The main outcome variables were self-reported app use and perceived usefulness of the app.

RESULTS:

Thirty-two participants who were asked to try FVdrills (n = 16) or SCraMP (n = 16) completed follow-up questionnaires. Twelve participants in the FVdrills group (75.0%) reported using the app. Of these 12, eight (66.7%) rated FVdrills “Very” or “Extremely” useful, and 11 (91.7%) agreed that FVdrills is “easy to use.” Nine participants in the SCraMP group (56.3%) reported using the app. Of these nine, only one participant (11.1%) rated SCraMP “Very” or “Extremely” useful and only two (22.2%) agreed that SCraMP is “Easy to use.”

CONCLUSION:

Commercial fishing captains who already own a smartphone or tablet may be willing to try a new mobile app addressing safety issues related to their work. App developers and safety professionals should conduct multiple rounds of formative evaluation, field-testing, and refinement to optimize ease of use and usefulness.

Keywords

Occupational safety mHealth mobile technology evaluation field-test

1 Introduction

Commercial fishing is a high-risk occupation. From 2000–2015, fishers and related fishing workers had a fatal work injury rate of 117 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, about 29 times the all-worker rate [1]. The leading contributors to commercial fishing related fatalities are vessel disasters and falls overboard, hazards unique to maritime work [2]. Although these and other hazards make commercial fishing extraordinarily dangerous work, fatalities are not inevitable. Effective safety measures exist, but numerous barriers keep fishing workers from adopting them more widely. Under the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act of 1988, the U.S. Coast Guard requires commercial fishing vessels to carry certain safety equipment and requires crew members to participate in regular emergency drills led by a trained drill conductor [3, 4]. There is evidence that deaths in Alaska related to commercial fishing decreased significantly in the decade following the law’s passage, largely in the instances of vessel disaster and capsizing [5]. Over the next two decades the incidence of commercial fishing related deaths generally continued to decline [1]. However, the fatality rate for commercial fishing workers remains extremely high relative to that of other occupations and could be reduced further if safety regulations and guidelines were followed fully.

In a study of Maine commercial fishing vessels, Davis [6] found that most vessels had basic safety equipment on board, but were less likely to have some of the more expensive equipment, such as survival crafts, survival suits, and emergency position indicating radio beacons (EPIRBs). Even when equipment was on board, some captains were not prepared to use certain items due to unfamiliarity with the items, difficulty finding the items, or items being broken or expired [6]. Davis also found that most of the fishing captains had never completed a drill conductor course, life raft training, or survival suit training [6]. These findings are cause for concern because knowing what to do in the event of emergency can improve the chances of survival [3]. Lucas et al. found that wearing an immersion suit and entering a life-raft were significantly associated with a crewmember surviving long-term cold water immersion resulting from a fishing vessel sinking [7]. As a safety community, we need to ensure that fishing vessels are equipped with appropriate emergency equipment, that the equipment is accessible and in good condition, and that vessel operators and crewmembers know how to use that equipment during an emergency.

We also need to ensure that vessel operators know how to maintain vessel stability to prevent vessel disasters from occurring in the first place. Stability testing is required for most fishing vessels 79 feet or more in length [8]. However, testing alone does not guarantee that vessel operators know how to maintain stability during changing conditions at sea. In a later study, Davis and colleagues [9] qualitatively assessed fishing vessel operators’ stability knowledge and rated only 42% as having a strong understanding of stability principles.

Interventions that fill these documented gaps in vessel operators’ knowledge and skills can make performing crucial safety practices easier, which could potentially increase adherence to safety regulations and ultimately help prevent fatalities. Two mobile apps have been developed with the aim of doing just that: the Small Craft Motion Program (SCraMP) app, which provides motion data to help users monitor vessel stability, and the FVdrills app, which provides checklists to help users run safety drills. The SCraMP app was developed to provide fishing operators with an affordable and accessible way to monitor vessel stability [10]. The FVdrills app was developed with the Alaska Marine Safety Education Association (AMSEA) to create a tool which would offer the user sample drills for various scenarios, including flooding, fire onboard, crew overboard, and abandon ship, as well as the ability to log drills [11]. The drills provided in the app were based on Jensen and Dzugan’s Beating the Odds on Northern Waters: A Guide to Fishing Safety [12]. Both apps are available for download on iOS devices (e.g. iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch) in the Apple App Store.

An initial assessment of the SCraMP app was conducted in 2012, where potential users at the Commercial Fishery Trade Show (ComFish) in Kodiak, Alaska, the Pacific Marine Expo in Seattle, Washington, and the Ferry Transport Committee’s Midyear Conference and Meeting in New York City were able to test the app on demonstration devices [10]. Of the seventeen participants who tested the app in these settings and completed the assessment questionnaire, feedback was largely positive. The majority of participants indicated agreement that the various features such as the accelerometer, gyroscope, safety metrics, location, and recording would be useful to them, with some being undecided and none disagreeing. Responses were similar when participants were asked if SCraMP would be useful during operations or if it would make operations safer.

In a small assessment of FVdrills conducted in 2015 [11], the three testers gave largely positive feedback, all rating the scenarios, checklists, and logbook as useful. However, they were unsure about the usefulness of the reminders feature and were unsure whether they would actually use FVdrills during fishing operations or conduct drills more regularly with FVdrills.

This early feedback suggested that FVdrills and SCraMP could be useful tools to assist vessel operators with running safety drills and monitoring vessel stability, respectively, but left open the question of whether or not commercial fishing workers would use these apps during their actual fishing operations. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not commercial fishing workers would use and benefit from the SCraMP and FVdrills apps, and individual features of each app, during actual fishing operations.

2 Methods

2.1 Study population

The study population was a convenience sample of commercial fishing vessel captains operating out of ports throughout the United States. To be eligible for our study, participants had to own an iOS or Android smartphone or tablet computer, be fluent in English, fish with a crew, and be actively fishing in consecutive months. Participant recruitment and data collection began in July 2018 and ended in October 2020. In 2018, we recruited participants by approaching commercial fishing workers dockside at ports in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. In 2019 and 2020, we recruited participants remotely by promoting the study through multiple avenues, including paper flyers distributed to retail establishments around major commercial fishing ports from Maine to New Jersey, social media posts and email blasts from commercial fishing organizations and professional associations, and print and electronic advertisements in commercial fishing news publications and trade magazines.

2.2 Study design and data collection protocol

This study utilized a parallel pre-post design with a non-equivalent no-intervention control group. After screening for eligibility and completing an informed consent process, we randomly assigned participants with iOS devices to test either the FVdrills or SCraMP app. Because SCraMP and FVdrills are not available for Android devices, we assigned all eligible Android users to the control group.

After being assigned to one of these three study arms, participants completed a baseline questionnaire that collected information regarding their commercial fishing experience, fishing vessel characteristics, fishing operations, concerns about safety, safety practices, and use of mobile devices and apps. After they completed the baseline questionnaire, we asked participants in the FVdrills and SCraMP arms to try the respective app during their usual fishing operations for the next month and directed them to the online App Store site for that app. We did not ask participants in the control arm to complete any tasks in the month following completion of the baseline questionnaire. Participants completed a follow-up questionnaire approximately one month later. The follow-up questionnaire again asked about participants’ concerns about safety and safety practices. Additionally, the follow-up questionnaire for the FVdrills and SCraMP arms included questions soliciting participants’ feedback about the app.

We used REDCap for all data collection [13]. For all questionnaires, participants did not have to answer any question which they did not want to answer. Participants in all study arms were permitted to discontinue their participation at any time. This study was approved by the Johns Hopkins University Homewood Institutional Review Board.

Because SCraMP and FVdrills were both already freely available on the app market, there was a chance that some participants had already used one or both of the apps before enrolling in our study. Immediately after assigning iOS users to one of the app testing groups, we asked them if they had ever downloaded or installed the app we wanted them to test (SCraMP or FVdrills). If they had never downloaded or installed the app before, we enrolled them into the full study. If they had ever downloaded or installed the app, we did not enroll them into the full study but instead asked them to complete a single questionnaire that gathered information about their fishing background and their feedback about the app, including how they learned about the app. We qualitatively analyzed the responses from these participants separately and did not include them in the present analysis.

2.3 Key variables

The main outcome variable for this analysis is whether or not participants in the SCraMP and FVdrills arms used the app. We measured this outcome using two questions: “Did you install [the app] on any of your mobile devices?” (yes/no) and “Did you open [the app] at least once?” (yes/no). If they responded “no” to either question, we prompted them to provide a free-text response about why they did not install/open the app, and the questionnaire ended there. If they responded “yes” to the second question, we asked participants to select, from a list, which individual features of their respective app they used. The questionnaire then went on to ask about secondary outcomes, described below.

We asked participants who opened their respective app at least once to rate the usefulness of the app and each of its features on a five-point scale (not at all useful, slightly useful, moderately useful, very useful, or extremely useful) with the following questions: ”Overall, how useful would you say [the app] is?” and “How useful would you say the following features of [the app] are?”

In addition, we collected information about several other factors that could influence app use. We used the Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2) [14] to identify relevant factors and develop questionnaire items. The UTAUT2 is a framework that incorporates theories on behavior and technology adoption to explain technology use and behavioral intention to use technology. According to the UTAUT2, technology use is determined by performance expectancy (perceived usefulness and benefit), effort expectancy (ease of use), social influence, facilitating conditions (available resources and support), hedonic motivation (enjoyment), price value (cost), and habit. Effects of these factors may also be moderated by gender, age, and experience. We included items in the follow-up questionnaire to capture participants’ feedback related to each element of the UTAUT2 as it relates to their respective app—with the exception of price value, as SCraMP and FVdrills are both available at no cost. We measured these constructs by asking participants to “agree” or “disagree” with a series of statements. Participants could also indicate that they were “not sure.”

2.4 Data analysis

After exporting the data from REDCap to Microsoft Excel, we merged the baseline and follow-up responses into a flat file with one row per participant and performed exploratory data analysis and data cleaning in Excel. Two questions accounted for most of the data cleaning: “How many years have you worked on commercial fishing vessels?” and “How many years have you been a fishing vessel captain?” Three participants provided text responses (e.g. “20 + years”) instead of numeric responses. We re-coded these responses into numerical values, using the lower value if a participant provided a range. For two observations, we also re-coded two responses to “missing” due to implausible values (i.e. years worked on fishing vessels < years as fishing vessel captain). We excluded these two participants from the calculation of average number of years for these variables but included them in all other analyses. After data cleaning, we performed descriptive analyses of key variables using Excel.

3 Results

Eighty-two commercial fishing workers expressed interest in participating in the study and were screened for eligibility. Of the 66 who were found to be eligible, 61 participants completed the baseline questionnaire. Nine participants were lost to follow-up, leaving 52 participants who completed both the baseline and follow-up questionnaires. This analysis includes these 52 participants: 16 in the FVdrills arm, 16 in the SCraMP arm, and 20 in the control arm.

3.1 Participant characteristics at baseline

Participants had an average age of 48.1 years and an average of 27.5 years of experience working on commercial fishing vessels, with an average of 20.6 of those years working as a commercial fishing captain (Table 1). Forty-eight participants (92.3%) described themselves as male. Thirty-two participants (61.5%) had completed drill conductor training. Thirty-one participants (59.6%) had run a drill in the last month, and twenty-four (46.2%) had adjusted for stability in the last month.

Table 1
Participant and vessel characteristics

Total FVdrills SCraMP Control

N = 52 N = 16 N = 16 N = 20

Participant characteristics

Male, n (%) 48 (92.3) 15 (93.8) 15 (93.8) 18 (90.0)

Age in years, mean (SD) 48.1 (14.7) 50.0 (13.6) 45.1 (15.2) 49.1 (15.4)

Fishing experience

Years of experience on commercial fishing vessels,¹ mean (SD) 27.5 (13.4) 22.9 (13.0) 23.6 (14.0) 32.5 (12.0)

Years of experience as a commercial fishing vessel captain,² mean (SD) 20.6 (14.3) 17.6 (13.9) 19.3 (14.6) 24.2 (13.7)

Vessel characteristics

Owns own vessel, n (%) 42 (80.8) 14 (87.5) 12 (75.0) 16 (80.0)

Vessel length in feet, mean (SD) 46.8 (32.0) 38.0 (8.2) 42.8 (19.5) 57.1 (46.2)

Vessel length in feet, median (IQR) 37.0 36.0 37.0 37.5

(32.0–45.3) (31.8–39.8) (32.0–48.5) (31.8–53.5)

Has vessel≥79 feet in length, n (%) 6 (11.5) 0 (0.0) 2 (12.5) 4 (20.0)

Safety characteristics

Has US Coast Guard inspection decal, n (%) 38 (73.1) 13 (81.3) 11 (68.8) 14 (70.0)

Completed drill conductor training, n (%) 32 (61.5) 12 (75.0) 8 (50.0) 12 (60.0)

Ran a drill in the last month, n (%) 31 (59.6) 8 (50.0) 8 (50.0) 15 (75.0)

Adjusted for stability in the last month, n (%) 24 (46.2) 8 (50.0) 9 (56.3) 7 (35.0)

Vessel has had stability test, n (%) 9 (17.3) 2 (12.5) 3 (18.8) 4 (20.0)

	Total	FVdrills	SCraMP	Control
Participant characteristics
Male, n (%)	48 (92.3)	15 (93.8)	15 (93.8)	18 (90.0)
Age in years, mean (SD)	48.1 (14.7)	50.0 (13.6)	45.1 (15.2)	49.1 (15.4)
Fishing experience
Years of experience on commercial fishing vessels,¹ mean (SD)	27.5 (13.4)	22.9 (13.0)	23.6 (14.0)	32.5 (12.0)
Years of experience as a commercial fishing vessel captain,² mean (SD)	20.6 (14.3)	17.6 (13.9)	19.3 (14.6)	24.2 (13.7)
Vessel characteristics
Owns own vessel, n (%)	42 (80.8)	14 (87.5)	12 (75.0)	16 (80.0)
Vessel length in feet, mean (SD)	46.8 (32.0)	38.0 (8.2)	42.8 (19.5)	57.1 (46.2)
Vessel length in feet, median (IQR)	37.0	36.0	37.0	37.5
	(32.0–45.3)	(31.8–39.8)	(32.0–48.5)	(31.8–53.5)
Has vessel≥79 feet in length, n (%)	6 (11.5)	0 (0.0)	2 (12.5)	4 (20.0)
Safety characteristics
Has US Coast Guard inspection decal, n (%)	38 (73.1)	13 (81.3)	11 (68.8)	14 (70.0)
Completed drill conductor training, n (%)	32 (61.5)	12 (75.0)	8 (50.0)	12 (60.0)
Ran a drill in the last month, n (%)	31 (59.6)	8 (50.0)	8 (50.0)	15 (75.0)
Adjusted for stability in the last month, n (%)	24 (46.2)	8 (50.0)	9 (56.3)	7 (35.0)
Vessel has had stability test, n (%)	9 (17.3)	2 (12.5)	3 (18.8)	4 (20.0)

¹Two observations were excluded due to implausible values and three observations were re-coded from text to numerical values, using the lower value if participant provided a range. ²Two observations were excluded due to implausible values and two observations were re-coded from text to numerical values, using the lower value if participant provided a range.

3.2 Fishing vessel characteristics at baseline

Of the 52 fishing vessels in use by participants, 42 (80.8%) were owner operated, 38 (73.1%) had a Coast Guard inspection decal, and 9 (17.3%) had undergone stability testing (Table 1). Six vessels (11.5%) measured 79 feet or more in length, which makes them subject to tighter safety regulations (46 CFR 28). Overall, the vessels averaged 46.8 feet in length, with a median length of 37.0 feet.

3.3 FVdrills use and opinions at follow-up

Of the 16 participants who were assigned to try the FVdrills app and completed the follow-up questionnaire, 12 (75.0%) installed the app onto their devices. All 12 participants who installed the app opened it at least once. Of the 12 installations, nine (75.0%) were onto an iPhone, three (25.0%) were onto an iPad, and none were onto an iPod Touch.

Of the 12 participants who used FVdrills, eight (66.7%) rated FVdrills “Very” or “Extremely” useful overall (Table 2). No participants rated the app “Not at all” useful. Eight of the 12 participants who used FVdrills (66.7%) agreed that “using FVdrills helped [them] run safety drills more effectively than [they] did before” and seven (58.3%) agreed that “using FVdrills helped [them] run safety drills more frequently than [they] did before” (Table 3).

Table 2
Perceived usefulness of the FVdrills app and its features

Not at all useful n (%) Slightly useful n (%) Moderately useful n (%) Very useful n (%) Extremely useful n (%)

Overall, how useful would you say the FVdrills app is? (N = 12) 0 (0.0) 2 (16.7) 2 (16.7) 7 (58.3) 1 (8.3)

How useful would you say the following features of the FVdrills app are? (N = 12) ¹

The EPIRB test 0 (0.0) 3 (25.0) 0 (0.0) 4 (33.3) 3 (25.0)

The vessel safety orientation 0 (0.0) 1 (8.3) 3 (25.0) 4 (33.3) 3 (25.0)

The person overboard drill 0 (0.0) 1 (8.3) 3 (25.0) 4 (33.3) 3 (25.0)

The fire on board drill 0 (0.0) 1 (8.3) 3 (25.0) 4 (33.3) 3 (25.0)

The flooding drill 0 (0.0) 1 (8.3) 3 (25.0) 4 (33.3) 3 (25.0)

The abandon ship drill 0 (0.0) 1 (8.3) 2 (16.7) 4 (33.3) 3 (25.0)

The random drills feature 0 (0.0) 1 (8.3) 3 (25.0) 3 (25.0) 3 (25.0)

The log book feature 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 4 (33.3) 3 (25.0) 3 (25.0)

The reminders 0 (0.0) 1 (8.3) 3 (25.0) 3 (25.0) 3 (25.0)

	Not at all useful n (%)	Slightly useful n (%)	Moderately useful n (%)	Very useful n (%)	Extremely useful n (%)
Overall, how useful would you say the FVdrills app is? (N = 12)	0 (0.0)	2 (16.7)	2 (16.7)	7 (58.3)	1 (8.3)
How useful would you say the following features of the FVdrills app are? (N = 12) ¹
The EPIRB test	0 (0.0)	3 (25.0)	0 (0.0)	4 (33.3)	3 (25.0)
The vessel safety orientation	0 (0.0)	1 (8.3)	3 (25.0)	4 (33.3)	3 (25.0)
The person overboard drill	0 (0.0)	1 (8.3)	3 (25.0)	4 (33.3)	3 (25.0)
The fire on board drill	0 (0.0)	1 (8.3)	3 (25.0)	4 (33.3)	3 (25.0)
The flooding drill	0 (0.0)	1 (8.3)	3 (25.0)	4 (33.3)	3 (25.0)
The abandon ship drill	0 (0.0)	1 (8.3)	2 (16.7)	4 (33.3)	3 (25.0)
The random drills feature	0 (0.0)	1 (8.3)	3 (25.0)	3 (25.0)	3 (25.0)
The log book feature	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	4 (33.3)	3 (25.0)	3 (25.0)
The reminders	0 (0.0)	1 (8.3)	3 (25.0)	3 (25.0)	3 (25.0)

¹The response percentage for each item was calculated out of the total number of participants who used FVdrills (n = 12), though not all participants answered every question regarding the usefulness of the various FVdrills features.

Table 3

Perceptions of the FVdrills app

Factor	FVdrills questionnaire item(s)	Agree n (%)	Disagree n (%)	Not sure n (%)
Performance expectancy (perceived usefulness and benefit)	Using the FVdrills app helped me run safety drills more effectively than I did before.	8 (66.7)	1 (8.3)	3 (25.0)
	Using the FVdrills app helped me run safety drills more frequently than I did before.	7 (58.3)	1 (8.3)	4 (33.3)
Effort expectancy (ease of use)	The FVdrills app is easy to use.	11 (91.7)	1 (8.3)	0 (0.0)
	It took me a long time to learn how to use the FVdrills app.	3 (25.0)	9 (75.0)	0 (0.0)
	The checklists in the FVdrills app are clear and understandable.	11 (91.7)	1 (8.3)	0 (0.0)
	The FVdrills app is a convenient way to run safety drills.	11 (91.7)	1 (8.3)	0 (0.0)
Social influence	Other commercial fishing captains I know would think using FVdrills is a good idea.	9 (75.0)	0 (0.0)	3 (25.0)
	My crew would like me to use FVdrills.	6 (50.0)	2 (16.7)	4 (33.3)
Facilitating conditions (available resources and support)	I have the knowledge necessary to use FVdrills.	12 (100.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
	I need more training to use FVdrills.	1 (8.3)	10 (83.3)	1 (8.3)
Hedonic motivation (enjoyment)	Using FVdrills is enjoyable.	8 (66.7)	1 (8.3)	3 (25.0)
Habit	I automatically go to FVdrills when I want to run safety drills, do a vessel safety orientation, or do an EPIRB test.	7 (58.3)	3 (25.0)	2 (16.7)
	Using FVdrills has become a habit for me.	2 (16.7)	5 (41.7)	5 (41.7)
Behavioral intention	I plan to continue using FVdrills in the future.	10 (83.3)	0 (0.0)	2 (16.7)

The 12 participants who used FVdrills most commonly reported using the vessel safety orientation (n = 9; 75%) and the person overboard drill (n = 7; 58.3%) (Table 4). All other features of FVdrills were used by at least 4 participants (33.3%). All features of FVdrills were rated “Very” or “Extremely” useful by at least six participants (50%) (Table 2). No participants rated any features “Not at all” useful.

Table 4

FVdrills features used by participants

Which features of FVdrills did you use? (N = 12)	Yes n (%)	No n (%)
EPIRB test	5 (41.7)	7 (58.3)
Vessel safety orientation	9 (75.0)	3 (25.0)
Person overboard drill	7 (58.3)	5 (41.7)
Fire on board drill	5 (41.7)	7 (58.3)
Flooding drill	5 (41.7)	7 (58.3)
Abandon ship drill	4 (33.3)	8 (66.7)
Random drills	5 (41.7)	7 (58.3)
Log book	4 (33.3)	8 (66.7)

Items capturing facilitating conditions and ease of use yielded the most consistent responses (Table 3). All 12 participants who installed the FVdrills app agreed with the statement “I have the knowledge necessary to use FVdrills.” Eleven participants (91.7%) agreed with each of the following statements: “The FVdrills app is easy to use,” “The checklists in the FVdrills app are clear and understandable,” and “The FVdrills app is a convenient way to run safety drills.” Most participants also agreed with these social influence and hedonic motivation statements: “other commercial fishing captains I know would think using FVdrills is a good idea” (n = 9; 75%) and “using FVdrills is enjoyable” (n = 8; 66.7%). With respect to habit and behavioral intention, seven participants (58.3%) agreed that “[they] automatically go to FVdrills when [they] want to run safety drills, do a vessel safety orientation, or do an EPIRB test” and 10 participants (83.3%) agreed that they “plan to continue using FVdrills in the future.”

3.4 SCraMP use and opinions at follow-up

Of the 16 participants who were assigned to try the SCraMP app and completed the follow-up questionnaire, nine (56.3%) installed the app onto a total of ten devices. Of the ten installations, eight (88.9%) were onto an iPhone, two (22.2%) were onto an iPad, and none were onto an iPod Touch. One participant installed SCraMP onto both an iPhone and an iPad. All nine participants who installed the app opened it at least once.

Most of the nine participants who used SCraMP rated it as “Slightly” or “Moderately” useful (n = 6; 66.7%). Two participants (22.2%) rated it “Not at all” useful. Only one participant (11.1%) rated SCraMP “Very” or “Extremely” useful (Table 5). Five participants (55.6%) agreed that “using the SCraMP app helped [them] monitor the stability of [their] fishing vessel more effectively than [they] did before” (Table 6). Only one participant (11.1%) agreed with the statement “using SCraMP helped me make adjustments to maintain vessel stability more frequently than I did before,” while three (33.3%) disagreed with that statement and 5 (55.6%) were not sure.

Table 5
Perceived usefulness of the SCraMP app and its features

Not at all useful n (%) Slightly useful n (%) Moderately useful n (%) Very useful n (%) Extremely useful n (%)

Overall, how useful would you say the SCraMP app is? (N = 9) 2 (22.2) 2 (22.2) 4 (44.4) 1 (11.1) 0 (0.0)

How useful would you say the following features of the SCraMP app are? (N = 9) ¹

The accelerometer 1 (11.1) 1 (11.1) 3 (33.3) 2 (22.2) 0 (0.0)

The gyroscope 1 (11.1) 1 (11.1) 1 (11.1) 3 (33.3) 1 (11.1)

Safety metrics 1 (11.1) 2 (22.2) 3 (33.3) 1 (11.1) 0 (0.0)

The location feature 2 (22.2) 0 (0.0) 3 (33.3) 1 (11.1) 0 (0.0)

The record feature 2 (22.2) 1 (11.1) 1 (11.1) 2 (22.2) 1 (11.1)

The audible warnings 2 (22.2) 1 (11.1) 2 (22.2) 1 (11.1) 0 (0.0)

	Not at all useful n (%)	Slightly useful n (%)	Moderately useful n (%)	Very useful n (%)	Extremely useful n (%)
Overall, how useful would you say the SCraMP app is? (N = 9)	2 (22.2)	2 (22.2)	4 (44.4)	1 (11.1)	0 (0.0)
How useful would you say the following features of the SCraMP app are? (N = 9) ¹
The accelerometer	1 (11.1)	1 (11.1)	3 (33.3)	2 (22.2)	0 (0.0)
The gyroscope	1 (11.1)	1 (11.1)	1 (11.1)	3 (33.3)	1 (11.1)
Safety metrics	1 (11.1)	2 (22.2)	3 (33.3)	1 (11.1)	0 (0.0)
The location feature	2 (22.2)	0 (0.0)	3 (33.3)	1 (11.1)	0 (0.0)
The record feature	2 (22.2)	1 (11.1)	1 (11.1)	2 (22.2)	1 (11.1)
The audible warnings	2 (22.2)	1 (11.1)	2 (22.2)	1 (11.1)	0 (0.0)

¹The response percentage for each item was calculated out of the total number of participants who used SCraMP (n = 9), though not all participants answered every question regarding the usefulness of the various SCraMP features.

Table 6

Perceptions of the SCraMP app

Factor	SCraMP questionnaire item(s)	Agree n (%)	Disagree n (%)	Not sure n (%)
Performance expectancy (perceived usefulness and benefit)	Using the SCraMP app helped me monitor the stability of my fishing vessel more effectively than I did before.	5 (55.6)	3 (33.3)	1 (11.1)
	Using the SCraMP app helped me make adjustments to maintain vessel stability more frequently than I did before.	1 (11.1)	3 (33.3)	5 (55.6)
Effort expectancy (ease of use)	The SCraMP app is easy to use.	2 (22.2)	6 (66.7)	1 (11.1)
	It took me a long time to learn how to use the SCraMP app.	4 (44.4)	5 (55.6)	0 (0.0)
	The graphs in the SCraMP app are clear and understandable.	4 (44.4)	3 (33.3)	2 (22.2)
	The SCraMP app is a convenient way to monitor vessel stability.	6 (66.7)	1 (11.1)	2 (22.2)
Social influence	Other commercial fishing captains I know would think using SCraMP is a good idea.	1 (11.1)	1 (11.1)	7 (77.8)
	My crew would like me to use SCraMP.	0 (0.0)	2 (22.2)	7 (77.8)
Facilitating conditions (available resources and support)	I have the knowledge necessary to use SCraMP.	3 (33.3)	6 (66.7)	0 (0.0)
	I need more training to use SCraMP.	7 (77.8)	2 (22.2)	0 (0.0)
Hedonic motivation (enjoyment)	Using SCraMP is enjoyable.	5 (55.6)	2 (22.2)	2 (22.2)
Habit	I automatically go to SCraMP when I want to monitor the stability of my fishing vessel.	2 (22.2)	5 (55.6)	2 (22.2)
	Using SCraMP has become a habit for me.	0 (0.0)	7 (77.8)	2 (22.2)
Behavioral intention	I plan to continue using SCraMP in the future.	4 (44.4)	1 (11.1)	4 (44.4)

The nine participants who used SCraMP most commonly reported using the accelerometer (n = 7; 77.8%) and the gyroscope (n = 7; 77.8%) (Table 7). The safety metrics and record feature were each used by two participants (22.2%). Only one participant (11.1%) used the location feature. No participants used the audible warning. Of the features within the SCraMP app, the gyroscope was most frequently rated as “Very” or “Extremely” useful (n = 4; 44.4%), followed by the record feature (n = 3; 33.3%) and the accelerometer (n = 2; 22.2%) (Table 5). The safety metrics, location feature, and audible warnings were each rated “Very” or “Extremely” useful by only one participant (11.1%). The features most frequently rated “Not at all” or only “Slightly” useful, with three participants (33.3%) each giving this rating, were the safety metrics, audible warnings, and the record feature. Each feature of SCraMP was rated “Not at all” useful by at least one participant.

Table 7

SCraMP features used by participants

Which features of SCraMP did you use? (N = 9)	Yes n (%)	No n (%)
Accelerometer	7 (77.8)	2 (22.2)
Gyroscope	7 (77.8)	2 (22.2)
Safety metrics	2 (22.2)	7 (77.8)
Location feature	1 (11.1)	8 (88.9)
Record feature	2 (22.2)	7 (77.8)
Audible warning	0 (0.0)	9 (100.0)

Items capturing facilitating conditions and ease of use again yielded the most consistent responses, but less favorably (Table 6). Of the nine participants who installed SCraMP, seven (77.8%) agreed with the statement “I need more training to use SCraMP,” six (66.7%) disagreed with the statements “I have the knowledge necessary to use SCraMP” and “the SCraMP app is easy to use.” However, six participants (66.7%) agreed that “the SCraMP app is a convenient way to monitor vessel stability.” Most participants also agreed with the hedonic motivation statement: “using SCraMP is enjoyable” (n = 5; 55.6%).

With respect to habit, only two participants (22.2%) agreed with the statement “I automatically go to SCraMP when I want to monitor the stability of my fishing vessel.” Five participants (55.6%) disagreed with that statement and two (22.2%) were not sure. Behavioral intention was split, with four participants (44.4%) agreeing with the statement “I plan to continue using SCraMP in the future.” Only one participant (11.1%) disagreed with this statement, but four (44.4%) were not sure.

4 Discussion

4.1 Summary and implications

This study field tested two safety-related mobile apps for use in commercial fishing. Feedback from fishing vessel operators suggests that many fishing captains who already own a smartphone or tablet computer are willing to try a new mobile app designed to help them with safety issues related to their work.

Participants generally expressed favorable opinions about FVdrills. Two-thirds of participants who installed FVdrills rated the app as very or extremely useful, and at least half rated each individual feature of FVdrills as very or extremely useful. Similarly, more than half of participants who installed FVdrills agreed that FVdrills helped them to run safety drills more effectively or frequently than they did before. Each of the features within FVdrills was used by at least one-third of the participants who installed the app, with the vessel safety orientation and the person overboard drill being used by the most participants. Almost all participants who installed FVdrills found it easy to use and thought it was a convenient way to run drills. Most participants reported that they automatically go to FVdrills for things like running safety drills and doing a vessel safety orientation, and 83% indicated that they plan to continue using FVdrills in the future.

Participants expressed mixed opinions about SCraMP. Most participants who installed SCraMP found using the app enjoyable and indicated that it did help them monitor the stability of their vessel more effectively. At the same time, most participants who installed SCraMP rated the app as only slightly or moderately useful. Some rated it as not at all useful, and only one thought it was very or extremely useful. Most participants thought SCraMP was not easy to use, that they did not have the knowledge necessary to use it, and that they need more training to use it. Of the individual features within the SCraMP app, participants most frequently reported using the gyroscope and the accelerometer and also rated these as the most useful features. No participants used the audible warning feature, possibly because fishing vessels are very noisy environments and hearing loss is common in the commercial fishing population [15]. Participant opinions of the record feature were split, with equal numbers rating it very or extremely useful and rating it not at all or only slightly useful. Behavioral intention was also split, with four participants (44.4%) agreeing with the statement “I plan to continue using SCraMP in the future,” only one participant (11.1%) disagreeing with this statement, and four (44.4%) being not sure.

Directly comparing reactions to FVdrills and SCraMP was not an original aim of our study. However, taken together, participants’ feedback on the two apps provides useful insights for those developing safety-related mobile apps for workers in commercial fishing and similar occupations. Our findings are consistent with the UTAUT2. Perceived usefulness, ease of use, required knowledge, social influence, habit, and enjoyment were all rated more positively for FVdrills than for SCraMP. Accordingly, intention to use the app in the future was higher among the FVdrills users than the SCraMP users.

We also found that a smaller percentage of participants actually installed SCraMP (56%) than FVdrills (75%). Although it is difficult to interpret exactly what that difference means, it could reflect differences in perceived usefulness, ease of use, and required knowledge based solely on the descriptions in the App Store. We cannot be certain, as we did not ask participants who did not install their assigned app whether or not they visited the App Store. That would be an important question to ask in future studies of app use because an app’s description in the App Store provides an opportunity to emphasize an app’s usefulness and include indicators of required knowledge and ease of use.

In response to early feedback from this study, the developer of SCraMP and FVdrills created video tutorials demonstrating use of the apps. Because these tutorials became available to the public after we had already begun data collection, we did not mention the tutorials to participants or ask participants whether or not they had watched a tutorial, which would have required us to change the study protocol. It is possible that some participants recruited later in the data collection period were naturally exposed to the tutorials, which could have led them to rate the facilitating conditions more favorably than participants recruited earlier. However, in the end, facilitating conditions, specifically having the knowledge necessary to use the app and needing more training to use the app, were still rated much more favorably for FVdrills than for SCraMP. Future research on the influence of tutorials and in-app help features on the use of safety-related apps, particularly what makes an effective tutorial or help feature, could help app developers maximize an app’s impact.

Furthermore, these findings likely reflect the relative prioritization of training within the commercial fishing sector. While drills are a recurring requirement, few fishermen have been provided training in vessel stability. Roughly three times as many participants in this study had completed drill conductor training as had a vessel that had ever undergone stability testing. Three quarters of the FVdrills cohort had prior training in the conduct of drills whereas fewer than one in five of the SCraMP cohort had a vessel that had undergone a stability test. Even amongst those operating vessels with stability reports, few fishermen have had the stability assessment explained to them by a naval architect [16]. In McCue’s 2013 study [10], the comparatively informal protocol permitted in-person training with the app. That little bit of training could partially explain the more positive feedback participants provided about SCraMP in that study compared to the present study. As such, reflection on the findings of this study vs. McCue’s 2013 study and furthermore the SCraMP vs. FVdrills cohort results point to the value and need for safety training in parallel to engineered safety intervention tools.

4.2 Limitations and strengths

We must take some methodological limitations into consideration in interpreting our results. Our findings are based on a relatively small convenience sample of commercial fishing captains. We initially aimed for a sample twice the size of the one we had to work with. However, we suspended participant recruitment and data collection in late 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic and economic downturn which caused many commercial fishing captains to cease all fishing activity [17, 18]. Being inactive made it impossible for them to field-test the apps during actual fishing operations and rendered them ineligible for study participation. Our ultimate sample size was too small to assess any associations between app use and changes in safety practices, which was one of our original aims. If conditions change and resources permit, it is possible that we could resume participant recruitment and data collection in the future, and carry out a multivariate analysis that would allow us to identify independent predictors of app use as relates to SCraMP and FVdrills. At this time, we are limited to reporting what we have learned from descriptive statistics alone.

We recruited commercial fishing captains for this study because vessel operators are the workers most likely to be interested in and benefit from the SCraMP and FVdrills apps, but we should note that we cannot generalize our findings to all commercial fishing workers, and our conclusions might not apply to other types of mobile apps. Also, being from a convenience sample, our participants are not representative of all commercial fishing vessel operators. Demographically, our sample is similar to the corresponding broader occupational classification of first-line supervisors of farming, fishing, and forestry. This occupation group is 87% male with a median age of 49 years, compared to our sample that is 92% male with a median age of 48 [19]. However, our sample differs from other fishing captains in terms of fishing region, type of fish caught, and the corresponding type and size of fishing vessel. The majority of participants in our sample had small boats (less than 79 feet in length) and fished out of the Northeastern United States. Our findings might not generalize to all captains on larger boats and those who fish in other regions of the country. However, certain safety issues are common to most commercial fishing environments, so our findings should still inform app development for this worker population.

A major strength of our study is that we were able to test the apps under realistic conditions. Because all participants already had a smartphone or tablet computer, they were able to install the app onto their own device, with which they were already familiar and, presumably, felt comfortable using. Consequently, we can be reasonably sure that the feedback participants provided reflected their experience with the app itself rather than their experience with the device. Further, while we asked participants to try the app and directed them to the app’s site in the App Store, participants chose whether to install the app onto their device or not, much as they would have to do under real-world conditions. Another strength of this study is that we randomly assigned iOS users to test either FVdrills or SCraMP, allowing us to make valid comparisons between participants’ reactions to the two apps without the threat of self-selection bias.

5 Conclusion

Our results suggest that many commercial fishing vessel operators who already own a smartphone or tablet computer are willing to try a new mobile app designed to address safety issues related to their work. Further, some vessel operators who try a new app may continue using the app if they perceive it to be both easy to use and useful. To improve uptake of app-based safety interventions, app developers should consider multiple avenues for improving facilitating conditions. An important step in doing so is determining the level and kind of knowledge required to use the app effectively and creating training programs, tutorials or in-app help to support users who might not bring extensive knowledge with them. Helping potential app users understand the purpose of an app before they install it could also improve uptake. An app’s site in the marketplace is an opportunity to provide such information and should be evaluated along with the app itself. Multiple rounds of formative evaluation, usability testing, and field testing among intended users, along with refinement of the app and any tutorials, may be needed to optimize ease of use and usefulness. If the app is also shown to improve safety practices, maximizing its uptake can ultimately enhance safety and reduce fatalities in some of the most hazardous work settings.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors have no acknowledgments.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2U54OH007542) through the Northeast Center for Occupational Health and Safety: Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing.

References

CDC – Commercial Fishing Safety: Commercial Fishing in the United States – NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic [WWW Document], n.d. Cited 2021 April. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/fishing/nationaloverview.html#ref1

Lucas

, Case

. Work-related mortality in the US fishing industry during 2000–2014: New findings based on improved workforce exposure estimates. Am J Ind Med. 2018;61:21–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22761

Dzugan

. The development and efficacy of safety training for commercial fishermen. J Agromedicine. 2010;15:351–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2010.509226

Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act 1988 (USA).

Lincoln

, Conway

. Preventing commercial fishing deaths in Alaska. Occup Environ Med. 1999;56:691–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.56.10.691

Davis

. Occupational safety and regulatory compliance in US commercial fishing. Arch Environ Occup Heal. 2011;66:209–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2011.564237

Lucas

, Case

, Lincoln

, Watson

. Factors associated with crewmember survival of commercial fishing vessel sinkings in Alaska. Saf Sci. 2018;101:190–6. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.009

United States Code of Federal Regulations. Title 46, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 28—Requirements for Commercial Fishing Industry Vessels, Subpart E—Stability. Effective January 3, 2016. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-46/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-28?toc=1

Davis

, Colbourne

, Molyneux

. Analysis of fishing vessel capsizing causes and links to operator stability training. Saf Sci. 2019;118:355–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.017

10.

McCue

. On the use of mobile apps for improved maritime safety, in: First International Conference IDS2013-Amazonia. 2013. Iquitos, Peru.

11.

McCue

, Bulzacchelli

, Dzugan

. Formative evaluation of a mobile application for conducting fishing vessel safety drills, National Occupational Injury Research Symposium. 2015. Kingwood, West Virginia.

12.

Jensen

, Dzugan

. Beating the Odds on Northern Waters: A Guide to Fishing Safety,, 6th ed. Alaska Sea Grant. 2009.

13.

Harris

, Taylor

, Thielke

, Payne

, Gonzalez

, Conde

. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBI.2008.08.010

14.

Venkatesh

, Thong

JYL

, Xu

. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q Manag Inf Syst. 2012;36:157–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

15.

Albizu

, de Oliveira Gonçalves

, de Lacerda

ABM

, Zeigelboim

, Marques

. Noise exposure and effects on hearing in Brazilian fishermen. Work. 2020;65(4):881–9. doi:10.3233/WOR-203139

16.

McCue

, Bulzacchelli

, Bellantoni

. A data-driven, commercial fishing, call to arms. Marine Technology (mt), Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. 2021 October.

17.

Sorensen

, Echard

, Weil

. From bad to worse: the impact of COVID-19 on commercial fisheries workers. J Agromed. 2020;25(4):388–91. doi:10.1080/1059924X.2020.1815617

18.

Smith

, Golden

, Ramenzoni

, Zemeckis

, Jensen

. Adaptation and resilience of commercial fishers in the Northeast United States during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(12):e0243886. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243886

19.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey: Demographics. [Internet] Washington DC. Cited 2021 June. Available at https://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm