Dataset Information

Quality of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Mobile Apps: Evaluation Using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) With Additional Criteria From a Content Expert.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Romero RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6913732 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Mobile Apps: Evaluation Using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) With Additional Criteria From a Content Expert.

Romero Ryan Lee RL Kates Frederick F Hart Mark M Ojeda Amanda A Meirom Itai I Hardy Stephen S

JMIR mHealth and uHealth 20191030 10

<h4>Background</h4>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 minim ...[more]

PMID: 31670695

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

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.

Project description:BackgroundSelecting and integrating health-related apps into patient care is impeded by the absence of objective guidelines for identifying high-quality apps from the many thousands now available.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the App Rating Inventory, which was developed by the Defense Health Agency's Connected Health branch, to support clinical decisions regarding app selection and evaluate medical and behavioral apps.MethodsTo enhance the tool's performance, eliminate item redundancy, reduce scoring system subjectivity, and ensure a broad application of App Rating Inventory-derived results, inventory development included 3 rounds of validation testing and 2 trial periods conducted over a 6-month interval. The development focused on content validity testing, dimensionality (ie, whether the tool's criteria performed as operationalized), factor and commonality analysis, and interrater reliability (reliability scores improved from 0.62 to 0.95 over the course of development).ResultsThe development phase culminated in a review of 248 apps for a total of 6944 data points and a final 28-item, 3-category app rating system. The App Rating Inventory produces scores for the following three categories: evidence (6 items), content (11 items), and customizability (11 items). The final (fourth) metric is the total score, which constitutes the sum of the 3 categories. All 28 items are weighted equally; no item is considered more (or less) important than any other item. As the scoring system is binary (either the app contains the feature or it does not), the ratings' results are not dependent on a rater's nuanced assessments.ConclusionsUsing predetermined search criteria, app ratings begin with an environmental scan of the App Store and Google Play. This first step in market research funnels hundreds of apps in a given disease category down to a manageable top 10 apps that are, thereafter, rated using the App Rating Inventory. The category and final scores derived from the rating system inform the clinician about whether an app is evidence informed and easy to use. Although a rating allows a clinician to make focused decisions about app selection in a context where thousands of apps are available, clinicians must weigh the following factors before integrating apps into a treatment plan: clinical presentation, patient engagement and preferences, available resources, and technology expertise.

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.

Dataset Information

Quality of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Mobile Apps: Evaluation Using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) With Additional Criteria From a Content Expert.

Publications

Quality of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Mobile Apps: Evaluation Using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) With Additional Criteria From a Content Expert.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets