Dataset Information

Quality of Psychoeducational Apps for Military Members With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: An Evaluation Utilizing the Mobile Application Rating Scale.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Military personnel have an elevated risk of sustaining mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBI) and postconcussion symptoms (PCS). Smartphone apps that provide psychoeducation may assist those with mTBI or PCS to overcome unique barriers that military personnel experience with stigma and access to health care resources. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to (1) use the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) to evaluate smartphone apps purporting to provide psychoeducation for those who have sustained an mTBI or a PCS; (2) explore the relevance, utility, and effectiveness of these apps in facilitating symptom management and overall recovery from mTBI and PCS among military personnel; and (3) discuss considerations pertinent to health care professionals and patients with mTBI when considering the use of mobile health (mHealth), including apps for mTBI psychoeducation. METHODS:A five-step systematic search for smartphone apps for military members with mTBI or PCS was conducted on January 31, 2020. Cost-free apps meeting the inclusion criteria were evaluated using the MARS and compared with evidence-based best practice management protocols for mTBI and PCS. RESULTS:The search yielded a total of 347 smartphone apps. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 apps were subjected to evaluation. Two apps were endorsed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the US Department of Defense; all the others (n=11) were developed for civilians. When compared with evidence-based best practice resources, the apps provided various levels of psychoeducational content. There are multiple considerations that health care professionals and those who sustain an mTBI or a PCS have to consider when choosing to use mHealth and selecting a specific app for mTBI psychoeducation. These may include factors such as the app platform, developer, internet requirement, cost, frequency of updates, language, additional features, acknowledgment of mental health, accessibility, military specificity, and privacy and security of data. CONCLUSIONS:Psychoeducational interventions have a good evidence base as a treatment for mTBI and PCS. The use of apps for this purpose may be clinically effective, cost-effective, confidential, user friendly, and accessible. However, more research is needed to explore the effectiveness, usability, safety, security, and accessibility of apps designed for mTBI management.

SUBMITTER: Jones C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7463411 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality of Psychoeducational Apps for Military Members With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: An Evaluation Utilizing the Mobile Application Rating Scale.

Jones Chelsea C O'Toole Kaitlin K Jones Kevin K Brémault-Phillips Suzette S

JMIR mHealth and uHealth 20200818 8

<h4>Background</h4>Military personnel have an elevated risk of sustaining mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBI) and postconcussion symptoms (PCS). Smartphone apps that provide psychoeducation may assist those with mTBI or PCS to overcome unique barriers that military personnel experience with stigma and access to health care resources.<h4>Objective</h4>This study aims to (1) use the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) to evaluate smartphone apps purporting to provide psychoeducation for those ...[more]

PMID: 32808937

Similar Datasets

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: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.

Project description:BackgroundOver 11 million care partners in the United States who provide care to people living with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) cite persistent and pervasive unmet needs related to their caregiving role. The proliferation of mobile apps for care partners has the potential to meet care partners' needs, but the quality of apps is unknown.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the quality of publicly available apps for care partners of people living with ADRD and identify design features of low- and high-quality apps to guide future research and user-centered app development.MethodsWe searched the US Apple App and Google Play stores with the criteria that included apps needed to be available in the US Google Play or Apple App stores, accessible to users out of the box, and primarily intended for use by an informal (family or friend) care partner of a person living with ADRD. We classified and tabulated app functionalities. The included apps were then evaluated using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) using 23 items across 5 dimensions: engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information, and subjective quality. We computed descriptive statistics for each rating. To identify recommendations for future research and app development, we categorized rater comments on score-driving factors for each MARS rating item and what the app could have done to improve the item score.ResultsWe evaluated 17 apps. We found that, on average, apps are of minimally acceptable quality. Functionalities supported by apps included education (12/17, 71%), interactive training (3/17, 18%), documentation (3/17, 18%), tracking symptoms (2/17, 12%), care partner community (3/17, 18%), interaction with clinical experts (1/17, 6%), care coordination (2/17, 12%), and activities for the person living with ADRD (2/17, 12%). Of the 17 apps, 8 (47%) had only 1 feature, 6 (35%) had 2 features, and 3 (18%) had 3 features. The MARS quality mean score across apps was 3.08 (SD 0.83) on the 5-point rating scale (1=inadequate to 5=excellent), with apps scoring highest on average on functionality (mean 3.37, SD 0.99) and aesthetics (mean 3.24, SD 0.92) and lowest on average on information (mean 2.95, SD 0.95) and engagement (mean 2.76, SD 0.89). The MARS subjective quality mean score across apps was 2.26 (SD 1.02).ConclusionsWe identified apps whose mean scores were more than 1 point below minimally acceptable quality, whereas some were more than 1 point above. Many apps had broken features and were rated as below acceptable for engagement and information. Minimally acceptable quality is likely to be insufficient to meet care partner needs. Future research should establish minimum quality standards across dimensions for care partner mobile apps. Design features of high-quality apps identified in this study can provide the foundation for benchmarking these standards.

Project description:BackgroundThe wide use of mobile health apps has created new possibilities in social anxiety education and treatment. However, the content and quality of social anxiety apps have been quite unclear, which makes it difficult for people to choose appropriate apps to use on smartphones and tablets.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify the psychoeducational social anxiety apps in the two most popular Australian app stores, report the descriptive and technical information provided in apps exclusively for social anxiety, evaluate app quality, and identify whether any apps would be appropriate for people with social anxiety or others who know someone with social anxiety.MethodsThis systematic stepwise app search was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards and entailed searching for, identifying, and selecting apps in the Australian Apple App and Google Play Stores; downloading, using, and reviewing the identified apps; reporting technical and descriptive information in the app stores, an online app warehouse, and individual apps; evaluating app quality; and deciding whether to recommend the use of the apps.ResultsIn the app stores, 1043 apps were identified that contained the keywords social anxiety, social phobia, or shyness in their names or descriptions. Of these, 1.15% (12/1043) were evaluated (3 iOS apps and 9 Android apps). At the time of evaluation, the apps were compatible with smartphones and tablet devices; 9 were free to download from the app stores, whereas 3 were priced between US $2.95 (Aus $3.99) and US $3.69 (Aus $5.00). Among the evaluated apps, 3 were intended for treatment purposes, 3 provided supportive resources, 1 was intended for self-assessment, and the remaining 5 were designed for multiple purposes. At the time of downloading, app store ratings were available for 5 apps. The overall app quality was acceptable according to the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). On the basis of the MARS app quality rating subscale (sections A-D), the apps functioned well in performance, ease of use, navigation, and gestural design. However, app quality was less favorable when rated using the MARS app subjective quality subscale (section E).ConclusionsThe psychoeducational social anxiety apps evaluated in our study may benefit people with social anxiety, health professionals, and other community members. However, given that none of the apps appeared to contain empirical information or were shown to clinically reduce social anxiety (or aid in managing social anxiety), we cannot recommend their use. App accessibility could be improved by developing apps that are free and available for a wider range of operating systems, both between and within countries and regions. Information communication and technology professionals should collaborate with academics, mental health clinicians, and end users (ie, co-design) to develop current, evidence-based apps.

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.

Dataset Information

Quality of Psychoeducational Apps for Military Members With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: An Evaluation Utilizing the Mobile Application Rating Scale.

Publications

Quality of Psychoeducational Apps for Military Members With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: An Evaluation Utilizing the Mobile Application Rating Scale.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets