Consumer Mobile Apps for Potential Drug-Drug Interaction Check: Systematic Review and Content Analysis Using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
General consumers can now easily access drug information and quickly check for potential drug-drug interactions (PDDIs) through mobile health (mHealth) apps. With aging population in Canada, more people have chronic diseases and comorbidities leading to increasing numbers of medications. The use of mHealth apps for checking PDDIs can be helpful in ensuring patient safety and empowerment.Objective
The aim of this study was to review the characteristics and quality of publicly available mHealth apps that check for PDDIs.Methods
Apple App Store and Google Play were searched to identify apps with PDDI functionality. The apps' general and feature characteristics were extracted. The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) was used to assess the quality.Results
A total of 23 apps were included for the review-12 from Apple App Store and 11 from Google Play. Only 5 of these were paid apps, with an average price of $7.19 CAD. The mean MARS score was 3.23 out of 5 (interquartile range 1.34). The mean MARS scores for the apps from Google Play and Apple App Store were not statistically different (P=.84). The information dimension was associated with the highest score (3.63), whereas the engagement dimension resulted in the lowest score (2.75). The total number of features per app, average rating, and price were significantly associated with the total MARS score.Conclusions
Some apps provided accurate and comprehensive information about potential adverse drug effects from PDDIs. Given the potentially severe consequences of incorrect drug information, there is a need for oversight to eliminate low quality and potentially harmful apps. Because managing PDDIs is complex in the absence of complete information, secondary features such as medication reminder, refill reminder, medication history tracking, and pill identification could help enhance the effectiveness of PDDI apps.
SUBMITTER: Kim BY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5895923 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:The spread of technology and dissemination of knowledge across the World Wide Web has prompted the development of apps for American Sign Language (ASL) translation, interpretation, and syntax recognition. There is limited literature regarding the quality, effectiveness, and appropriateness of mobile health (mHealth) apps for the deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHOH) that pose to aid the DHOH in their everyday communication and activities. Other than the star-rating system with minimal comments regarding quality, the evaluation metrics used to rate mobile apps are commonly subjective. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of DHOH apps using a standardized scale. In addition, it also aimed to identify content-specific criteria to improve the evaluation process by using a content expert, and to use the content expert to more accurately evaluate apps and features supporting the DHOH. METHODS:A list of potential apps for evaluation was generated after a preliminary screening for apps related to the DHOH. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed to refine the master list of apps. The study modified a standardized rating scale with additional content-specific criteria applicable to the DHOH population for app evaluation. This was accomplished by including a DHOH content expert in the design of content-specific criteria. RESULTS:The results indicate a clear distinction in Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) scores among apps within the study's three app categories: ASL translators (highest score=3.72), speech-to-text (highest score=3.6), and hard-of-hearing assistants (highest score=3.90). Of the 217 apps obtained from the search criteria, 21 apps met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, the limited consideration for measures specific to the target population along with a high app turnover rate suggests opportunities for improved app effectiveness and evaluation. CONCLUSIONS:As more mHealth apps enter the market for the DHOH population, more criteria-based evaluation is needed to ensure the safety and appropriateness of the apps for the intended users. Evaluation of population-specific mHealth apps can benefit from content-specific measurement criteria developed by a content expert in the field.
| S-EPMC6913732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The large number of available cancer apps and their impact on the population necessitates a transparent, objective, and comprehensive evaluation by app experts, health care professionals, and users. To date, there have been no analyses or classifications of apps for patients with genitourinary cancers, which are among the most prevalent types of cancer. OBJECTIVE:The objective of our study was to analyze the quality of apps for patients diagnosed with genitourinary cancers using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) and identify high-quality apps. METHODS:We performed an observational cross-sectional descriptive study of all smartphone apps for patients diagnosed with genitourinary cancers available on iOS and Android platforms. In July 2019, we searched for all available apps for patients with genitourinary cancers (bladder, prostate, cervical, uterine, endometrial, kidney, testicular, and vulvar) or their caregivers. Apps were downloaded and evaluated, and the general characteristics were entered into a database. The evaluation was performed by 2 independent researchers using the MARS questionnaire, which rates 23 evaluation criteria clustered in 5 domains (Engagement, Functionality, Esthetics, Information, and Subjective Quality) on a scale from 1 to 5. RESULTS:In total, 46 apps were analyzed. Of these, 31 (67%) were available on Android, 6 (13%) on iOS, and 9 (20%) on both platforms. The apps were free in 89% of cases (41/46), and 61% (28/46) had been updated in the previous year. The apps were intended for prostate cancer in 30% of cases (14/46) and cervical cancer in 17% (8/46). The apps were mainly informative (63%, 29/46), preventive (24%, 11/46), and diagnostic (13%, 6/46). Only 7/46 apps (15%) were developed by health care organizations. The mean MARS score for the overall quality of the 46 apps was 2.98 (SD 0.77), with a maximum of 4.63 and a minimum of 1.95. Functionality scores were quite similar for most of the apps, with the greatest differences in Engagement and Esthetics, which showed acceptable scores in one-third of the apps. The 5 apps with the highest MARS score were the following: "Bladder cancer manager," "Kidney cancer manager," "My prostate cancer manager," "Target Ovarian Cancer Symptoms Diary," and "My Cancer Coach." We observed statistically significant differences in the MARS score between the operating systems and the developer types (P<.001 and P=.01, respectively), but not for cost (P=.62). CONCLUSIONS:MARS is a helpful methodology to decide which apps can be prescribed to patients and to identify which features should be addressed to improve these tools. Most of the apps designed for patients with genitourinary cancers only try to provide data about the disease, without coherent interactivity. The participation of health professionals in the development of these apps is low; nevertheless, we observed that both the participation of health professionals and regular updates were correlated with quality.
| S-EPMC7413276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFood allergies and intolerances are increasing worldwide, and mobile phone apps could be a promising tool for self-management of these issues.ObjectiveThis study aimed to systemically search and assess food allergy or intolerance apps in app stores using the multidimensional Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) to rate the objective and subjective quality and to identify critical points for future improvements.MethodsThis systematic search identified apps through the keywords "food allergy," "food intolerance," and "allergens" in English, Spanish, and Italian in the Apple App Store (iOS) and Google Play Store (Android). The inclusion criteria were a user star rating of ≥3 (of 5 stars) to limit the selection to the most highly rated apps; ≥1000 reviews as an indicator of reliability; and the most recent update performed up to 2017. Then, the apps were divided according to their purpose (searching for allergen-free "food products," "restaurants," or recipes in "meal planners") and evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 points using the MARS in terms of (1) app classification category with a descriptive aim; (2) app subjective and objective quality categories comprised of engagement, functionality, esthetics, and information sections (Medline was searched for eligible apps to check whether they had been tested in trials); and (3) an optional app-specific section. Furthermore, the output and input features were evaluated. Differences between MARS sections and between app purposes and correlations among MARS sections, star ratings, and numbers of reviews were evaluated.ResultsOf the 1376 apps identified, 14 were included: 12 related to food allergies and intolerances that detect 2-16 food allergens and 2 related only to gluten intolerance. The mean (SD) MARS scores (maximum 5 points) were 3.8 (SD 0.4) for objective quality, highlighting whether any app had been tested in trials; 3.5 (SD 0.6) for subjective quality; and 3.6 (SD 0.7) for the app-specific section. Therefore, a rating ≥3 points indicated overall acceptable quality. From the between-section comparison, engagement (mean 3.5, SD 0.6) obtained significantly lower scores than functionality (mean 4.1, SD 0.6), esthetics (mean 4, SD 0.5), and information (mean 3.8, SD 0.4). However, when the apps were compared by purpose, critical points were identified: meal planner apps showed significantly higher engagement (mean 4.1, SD 0.4) than food product (mean 3.0, SD 0.6; P=.05) and restaurant (mean 3.2, SD 0.3; P=.02) apps.ConclusionsIn this systematic search of food allergy or intolerance apps, acceptable MARS quality was identified, although the engagement section for food product and restaurant purpose apps should be improved and the included apps should be tested in trials. The critical points identified in this systematic search can help improve the innovativeness and applicability of future food allergy and intolerance apps.
| S-EPMC7527917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic rheumatic diseases need long-term treatment and professional supervision. Mobile apps promise to improve the lives of patients and physicians. In routine practice, however, rheumatology apps are largely unknown and little is known about their quality and safety. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to provide an overview of mobile rheumatology apps currently available in German app stores, evaluate app quality using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), and compile brief, ready-to-use descriptions for patients and rheumatologists. METHODS:The German App Store and Google Play store were systematically searched to identify German rheumatology mobile apps for patient and physician use. MARS was used to independently assess app quality by 8 physicians, 4 using Android and 4 using iOS smartphones. Apps were randomly assigned so that 4 apps were rated by all raters and the remaining apps were rated by two Android and two iOS users. Furthermore, brief app descriptions including app developers, app categories, and features were compiled to inform potential users and developers. RESULTS:In total, 128 and 63 apps were identified in the German Google Play and App Store, respectively. After removing duplicates and only including apps that were available in both stores, 28 apps remained. Sixteen apps met the inclusion criteria, which were (1) German language, (2) availability in both app stores, (3) targeting patients or physicians as users, and (4) clearly including rheumatology or rheumatic diseases as subject matter. Exclusion criteria were (1) congress apps and (2) company apps with advertisements. Nine apps addressed patients and 7 apps addressed physicians. No clinical studies to support the effectiveness and safety of apps could be found. Pharmaceutical companies were the main developers of two apps. Rheuma Auszeit was the only app mainly developed by a patient organization. This app had the highest overall MARS score (4.19/5). Three out of 9 patient apps featured validated questionnaires. The median overall MARS score was 3.85/5, ranging from 2.81/5 to 4.19/5. One patient-targeted and one physician-targeted app had MARS scores >4/5. No significant rater gender or platform (iOS/Android) differences could be observed. The overall correlation between app store ratings and MARS scores was low and inconsistent between platforms. CONCLUSIONS:To our knowledge, this is the first study that systematically identified and evaluated mobile apps in rheumatology for patients and physicians available in German app stores. We found a lack of supporting clinical studies, use of validated questionnaires, and involvement of academic developers. Overall app quality was heterogeneous. To create high-quality apps, closer cooperation led by patients and physicians is vital.
| S-EPMC6699116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate HIV/AIDS mobile applications using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and rate the features of these applications using the new tool called the Feature-based Application Rating Method (FARM).MethodsIn this study, all available HIV/AIDS apps in Iran from Cafe Bazaar and Google Play Store due to inclusion criteria were studied. The evaluation of the quality of applications was done using the MARS tool and the FARM tool. The FARM, which was developed in this study, was applied to rank the features of the applications.ResultsIn this study, 79 applications were included. The mean score of all apps using both tools was 3.58 (SD = 0.95) out of 5. The overall mean quality score based on the MARS was 3.14 (SD = 0.84), and the mean score of features based on FARM was 3.81 (SD = 1.23). This study showed a higher than moderate correlation between the scores assigned to apps based on the MARS and FARM tools (r > 0.4).ConclusionsThe HIV/AIDS mobile applications available in Iran had the "acceptable" ranking. Also, our study results showed that to evaluate mobile apps, using a single tool may not provide good insight to evaluators about the assessed apps. However, using more than one tool may provide more details about the evaluated apps. To improve the quality of mobile health apps and help users select the most desirable app, we suggested using tools like FARM for ranking apps based on the features of each app in the app stores.
| S-EPMC9618024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe number of mobile health (mHealth) apps continues to rise each year. Widespread use of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) has allowed objective and multidimensional evaluation of the quality of these apps. However, no Japanese version of MARS has been made available to date.ObjectiveThe purposes of this study were (1) to develop a Japanese version of MARS and (2) to assess the translated version's reliability and validity in evaluating mHealth apps.MethodsTo develop the Japanese version of MARS, cross-cultural adaptation was used using a universalist approach. A total of 50 mental health apps were evaluated by 2 independent raters. Internal consistency and interrater reliability were then calculated. Convergent and divergent validity were assessed using multitrait scaling analysis and concurrent validity.ResultsAfter cross-cultural adaptation, all 23 items from the original MARS were included in the Japanese version. Following translation, back-translation, and review by the author of the original MARS, a Japanese version of MARS was finalized. Internal consistency was acceptable by all subscales of objective and subjective quality (Cronbach α=.78-.89). Interrater reliability was deemed acceptable, with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ranging from 0.61 to 0.79 for all subscales, except for "functionality," which had an ICC of 0.40. Convergent/divergent validity and concurrent validity were also considered acceptable. The rate of missing responses was high in several items in the "information" subscale.ConclusionsA Japanese version of MARS was developed and shown to be reliable and valid to a degree that was comparable to the original MARS. This Japanese version of MARS can be used as a standard to evaluate the quality and credibility of mHealth apps.
| S-EPMC9052018 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMobile apps are becoming increasingly popular, with 5.70 million apps available in early 2021. Smartphones can provide portable and convenient access to health apps. Here, we consider apps for people with one of the estimated 7000 rare conditions, which are defined as having an incidence of <1 in 2000. The needs of people with rare conditions are known to be different from those of people with more common conditions. The former may be socially isolated (not knowing anyone else who has the condition) and may not be able to find reliable information about the disorder.ObjectiveThe aim of this review is to search for apps developed specifically for people diagnosed with a rare disease and to assess them for quality using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). We examine features that address 6 identified needs of people with a rare disorder and make recommendations for future developers.MethodsGoogle Play Store (Android) and Apple App Store (iOS) were searched for relevant health-related apps specifically for rare diseases. The search included the names of 10 rare disease groups. App quality was determined using MARS, assessing app engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information.ResultsWe found 29 relevant apps (from a total of 2272) addressing 14 rare diseases or disease groups. The most common rare conditions addressed were cystic fibrosis (n=6), hemophilia (n=5), and thalassemia (n=5). The most common app features were web-based information and symptom trackers. The mean MARS score was 3.44 (SD 0.84). Lowest scores were for engagement.ConclusionsMost apps provided factual and visual information, providing tools for self-monitoring and resources to help improve interactions during health consultations. App origin and quality varied greatly. Developers are recommended to consider ways to make appropriate apps more easily identifiable to consumers, to always include high-quality information, improve engagement, provide qualitative evaluations of the app, and include consumers and clinicians in the design.
| S-EPMC9364167 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to provide an overview of apps to help control the spread of Covid-19 in Germany and rate them according to standardized instruments.Materials and methodsThe Apple App Store and Google Play Store were systematically searched to identify apps dealing with Covid-19 in Germany. The German Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G) was used to independently assess app quality by 2 trained reviewers.ResultsOverall, the quality of the 6 rated apps was good with a mean score of 4.15 (3.88-4.34). The best-rated apps were NINA app (4.34) and Corona Health App (4.29). The best-rated sections were functionality (4.40), aesthetic (4.25), and information (4.25). In contrast, the worst-rated section was engagement (3.63). Even though some of the apps were used by more people than others, there was no correlation between the MARS-G rating and app store rating. In addition, the MARS-G proved to be effective even with rating apps, which have different goals and methods to achieve them.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study that identified and evaluated German Covid-19 mobile health apps available in the German app stores. The review shows that despite the excellent quality in aspects like information and functionality, there is still a gap in the engagement section. To motivate more people to use the Covid-19 apps, new ideas are needed, besides more information and education about the functionality of the apps, to gain trust in app developers and raise the number of downloads.
| S-EPMC9543402 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe number of mobile health apps (MHAs), which are developed to promote healthy behaviors, prevent disease onset, manage and cure diseases, or assist with rehabilitation measures, has exploded. App store star ratings and descriptions usually provide insufficient or even false information about app quality, although they are popular among end users. A rigorous systematic approach to establish and evaluate the quality of MHAs is urgently needed. The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) is an assessment tool that facilitates the objective and systematic evaluation of the quality of MHAs. However, a German MARS is currently not available.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to translate and validate a German version of the MARS (MARS-G).MethodsThe original 19-item MARS was forward and backward translated twice, and the MARS-G was created. App description items were extended, and 104 MHAs were rated twice by eight independent bilingual researchers, using the MARS-G and MARS. The internal consistency, validity, and reliability of both scales were assessed. Mokken scale analysis was used to investigate the scalability of the overall scores.ResultsThe retranslated scale showed excellent alignment with the original MARS. Additionally, the properties of the MARS-G were comparable to those of the original MARS. The internal consistency was good for all subscales (ie, omega ranged from 0.72 to 0.91). The correlation coefficients (r) between the dimensions of the MARS-G and MARS ranged from 0.93 to 0.98. The scalability of the MARS (H=0.50) and MARS-G (H=0.48) were good.ConclusionsThe MARS-G is a reliable and valid tool for experts and stakeholders to assess the quality of health apps in German-speaking populations. The overall score is a reliable quality indicator. However, further studies are needed to assess the factorial structure of the MARS and MARS-G.
| S-EPMC7148545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMobile health apps (MHA) have the potential to improve health care. The commercial MHA market is rapidly growing, but the content and quality of available MHA are unknown. Instruments for the assessment of the quality and content of MHA are highly needed. The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) is one of the most widely used tools to evaluate the quality of MHA. Only few validation studies investigated its metric quality. No study has evaluated the construct validity and concurrent validity.ObjectiveThis study evaluates the construct validity, concurrent validity, reliability, and objectivity, of the MARS.MethodsData was pooled from 15 international app quality reviews to evaluate the metric properties of the MARS. The MARS measures app quality across four dimensions: engagement, functionality, aesthetics and information quality. Construct validity was evaluated by assessing related competing confirmatory models by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Non-centrality (RMSEA), incremental (CFI, TLI) and residual (SRMR) fit indices were used to evaluate the goodness of fit. As a measure of concurrent validity, the correlations to another quality assessment tool (ENLIGHT) were investigated. Reliability was determined using Omega. Objectivity was assessed by intra-class correlation.ResultsIn total, MARS ratings from 1,299 MHA covering 15 different health domains were included. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a bifactor model with a general factor and a factor for each dimension (RMSEA = 0.074, TLI = 0.922, CFI = 0.940, SRMR = 0.059). Reliability was good to excellent (Omega 0.79 to 0.93). Objectivity was high (ICC = 0.82). MARS correlated with ENLIGHT (ps<.05).ConclusionThe metric evaluation of the MARS demonstrated its suitability for the quality assessment. As such, the MARS could be used to make the quality of MHA transparent to health care stakeholders and patients. Future studies could extend the present findings by investigating the re-test reliability and predictive validity of the MARS.
| S-EPMC7605637 | biostudies-literature