Dataset Information

Health App Review Tool: Matching mobile apps to Alzheimer’s populations (HART Match)

ABSTRACT: Aim: This brief report provides an overview of the development and structure of the Health App Review Tool. Methods: The Health App Review Tool has been designed to assess smart phone health apps according to their compatibility to individuals within the Alzheimer’s disease community. Specifically, app features and functions are characterized according to their appropriateness to the needs, abilities, and preferences of potential users. The Health App Review Tool is comprised of two components, the App and User Assessment; each component includes four complementary domains. Items in these domains can be compared between App and User assessments using a scoring key that will produce a match score. The score indicates the level of appropriateness in reference to the app’s ability to meet the user’s needs. Discussion: The Health App Review Tool was designed using available evidence and stakeholder preference data to ensure a user-centered design. The result was the development of a tool built on evidence and informed by the perceptions and preferences of those within and working with the Alzheimer’s disease population. App and User domains include usefulness, complexity, accessibility, and external variables. This unique matching approach is anticipated to significantly impact individualized, client-centered care. We anticipate that this study will serve as a model for future development of technology matching tools for other diagnostic populations. Discussion: The Health App Review Tool was designed using available evidence and stakeholder preference data to ensure a user-centered design. The result was the development of a tool built on evidence and informed by the perceptions and preferences of those within and working with the Alzheimer’s disease population. App and User domains include usefulness, complexity, accessibility, and external variables. This unique matching approach is anticipated to significantly impact individualized, client-centered care. We anticipate that this study will serve as a model for future development of technology matching tools for other diagnostic populations.

SUBMITTER: Faieta J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7517996 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) apps are becoming increasingly common in surgical practices for training, education, and communication. Factors leading to increased delays, morbidity, and mortality in surgery include inadequate preoperative patient preparation due to a failure to identify patients and procedure details, and missing instruments and equipment required for the procedure. Many apps are available for supporting preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care. However, there is a lack of studies that assess the quality of apps that act as surgical preparatory guides.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of apps that act as surgical preparatory guides for operating room personnel through an in-house quality assessment tool.MethodsThe quality assessment tool comprises 35 questions categorized into 5 sections: (1) engagement (customization, interactivity, target audience; 19 points), (2) functionality (performance, ease of use, navigation; 12 points), (3) aesthetics (layout, visual appeal; 6 points), (4) information (quality and quantity of information, visual information, credibility; 29 points), and (5) privacy and security (4 points). An app search was conducted in the Australian Apple and Google Play stores using the following keywords: "surgical apps", "surgical preferences", "surgeon preferences", "operating room", and "perioperative procedures". The overall total scores and scores for each section were reported as medians and IQRs, expressed as raw scores and percentages.ResultsA total of 5 unique apps were evaluated on both iOS and Android platforms. The median overall score across all apps was 35/70 (50%; IQR 38.6%-64.3%). ScrubUp (48/70, 69%) and MySurgeon (42/70, 60%) had the highest overall scores, followed by PrefCard (35/70, 50%) and Scrubnote (28/70, 40%). The lowest scoring app was BrainPadd (26/70, 37%). The sections with the highest median scores, in decreasing order, were privacy and security (4/4, 100%; IQR 75%-100%), aesthetics (5/6, 83%; IQR 75%-91.7%), engagement (15/19, 79%; IQR 57.9%-86.8%), functionality (7/12, 58%; IQR 29.2%-75%), and information (5/29, 17%; IQR 15.5%-34.5%). Most apps scored well (4/4, 100%) on privacy and security, except for Scrubnote (2/4, 50%). ScrubUp received a perfect score for aesthetics (6/6, 100%). MySurgeon (17/19, 90%) had the highest engagement score, while ScrubUp and MySurgeon had the highest functionality scores (9/12, 75% each). All apps scored below 50% for the information section, with ScrubUp having the highest score of 13/29 (45%).ConclusionsScrubUp and MySurgeon had the highest quality scores and can be used as adjuncts to hospital protocols by operating room personnel for their surgical preparation. Developers are encouraged to develop appropriate apps for surgical preparation based on relevant guidelines and standards, as well as the quality evaluation criteria in our tool. Operating room personnel can also use this tool as a guide to select and assess their preferred apps in their practices.

Project description:BackgroundApproximately 800 million people, representing 11% of the world's population, are affected by mental health problems. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated problems and triggered a decline in well-being, with drastic increase in the incidence of conditions such as anxiety, depression, and stress. Approximately 20,000 mental health apps are listed in mobile app stores. However, no significant evaluation of mental health apps in French, spoken by approximately 300 million people, has been identified in the literature yet.ObjectiveThis study aims to review the mental health mobile apps currently available on the French Apple App Store and Google Play Store and to evaluate their quality using Mobile App Rating Scale-French (MARS-F).MethodsScreening of mental health apps was conducted from June 10, 2022, to June 17, 2022, on the French Apple App Store and Google Play Store. A shortlist of 12 apps was identified using the criteria of selection and assessed using MARS-F by 9 mental health professionals. Intraclass correlation was used to evaluate interrater agreement. Mean (SD) scores and their distributions for each section and item were calculated.ResultsThe highest scores for MARS-F quality were obtained by Soutien psy avec Mon Sherpa (mean 3.85, SD 0.48), Evoluno (mean 3.54, SD 0.72), and Teale (mean 3.53, SD 0.87). Mean engagement scores (section A) ranged from 2.33 (SD 0.69) for Reflexe reussite to 3.80 (SD 0.61) for Soutien psy avec Mon Sherpa. Mean aesthetics scores (section C) ranged from 2.52 (SD 0.62) for Mental Booster to 3.89 (SD 0.69) for Soutien psy avec Mon Sherpa. Mean information scores (section D) ranged from 2.00 (SD 0.75) for Mental Booster to 3.46 (SD 0.77) for Soutien psy avec Mon Sherpa. Mean Mobile App Rating Scale subjective quality (section E) score varied from 1.22 (SD 0.26) for VOS - journal de l'humeur to 2.69 (SD 0.84) for Soutien psy avec Mon Sherpa. Mean app specificity (section F) score varied from 1.56 (SD 0.97) for Mental Booster to 3.31 (SD 1.22) for Evoluno. For all the mental health apps studied, except Soutien psy avec Mon Sherpa (11/12, 92%), the subjective quality score was always lower than the app specificity score, which was always lower than the MARS-F quality score, and that was lower than the rating score from the iPhone Operating System or Android app stores.ConclusionsMental health professionals assessed that, despite the lack of scientific evidence, the mental health mobile apps available on the French Apple App Store and Google Play Store were of good quality. However, they are reluctant to use them in their professional practice. Additional investigations are needed to assess their compliance with recommendations and their long-term impact on users.

Project description:BackgroundMilitary members (MMs) and public safety personnel (PSP) are vulnerable to occupational stress injuries because of their job demands. When MMs and PSP transition out of these professions, they may continue to experience mental health challenges. The development and implementation of resilience-building mobile health (mHealth) apps as an emergent mental health intervention platform has allowed for targeted, cost-effective, and easily accessible treatment when in-person therapy may be limited or unavailable. However, current mHealth app development is not regulated, and often lacks both clear evidence-based research and the input of health care professionals.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the evidence-based quality, efficacy, and effectiveness of resilience-building mobile apps targeted toward the MMs, PSP, and veteran populations via a scoping literature review of the current evidence base regarding resilience apps for these populations and an evaluation of free resilience apps designed for use among these populations.MethodsThe studies were selected using a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, Academic Search Complete, Embase, and Google and were guided by PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). A narrative synthesis of the resulting papers was performed. The Alberta Rating Index for Apps was used to conduct a review of each of the identified apps. The inclusion criteria consisted of apps that were free to download in either the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store; updated within the last 3 years; available in English and in Canada; and intended for use by MMs, veterans, and PSP.ResultsIn total, 22 apps met the inclusion criteria for evaluation. The resilience strategies offered by most apps included psychoeducation, mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy, and acceptance and commitment therapy. Overall, 50% (11/22) of apps had been tested in randomized controlled trials, 7 (32%) apps had been evaluated using other research methods, and 5 (23%) apps had not been studied. Using the Alberta Rating Index for Apps, the app scores ranged from 37 to 56 out of 72, with higher rated apps demonstrating increased usability and security features.ConclusionsThe mHealth apps reviewed are well-suited to providing resilience strategies for MMs, PSP, and veterans. They offer easy accessibility to evidence-based tools while working to encourage the use of emotional and professional support with safety in mind. Although not intended to function as a substitute for professional services, research has demonstrated that mHealth apps have the potential to foster a significant reduction in symptom severity for posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and other mental health conditions. In clinical practice, apps can be used to supplement treatment and provide clients with population-specific confidential tools to increase engagement in the treatment process.

Project description:BACKGROUND:More than a million health and well-being apps are available from the Apple and Google app stores. Some apps use built-in mobile phone sensors to generate health data. Clinicians and patients can find information regarding safe and effective mobile health (mHealth) apps in third party-curated mHealth app libraries. OBJECTIVE:These independent Web-based repositories guide app selection from trusted lists, but do they offer apps using ubiquitous, low-cost smartphone sensors to improve health? This study aimed to identify the types of built-in mobile phone sensors used in apps listed on curated health app libraries, the range of health conditions these apps address, and the cross-platform availability of the apps. METHODS:This systematic survey reviewed three such repositories (National Health Service Apps Library, AppScript, and MyHealthApps), assessing the availability of apps using built-in mobile phone sensors for the diagnosis or treatment of health conditions. RESULTS:A total of 18 such apps were identified and included in this survey, representing 1.1% (8/699) to 3% (2/76) of all apps offered by the respective libraries examined. About one-third (7/18, 39%) of the identified apps offered cross-platform Apple and Android versions, with a further 50% (9/18) only dedicated to Apple and 11% (2/18) to Android. About one-fourth (4/18, 22%) of the identified apps offered dedicated diagnostic functions, with a majority featuring therapeutic (9/18, 50%) or combined functionality (5/18, 28%). Cameras, touch screens, and microphones were the most frequently used built-in sensors. Health concerns addressed by these apps included respiratory, dermatological, neurological, and anxiety conditions. CONCLUSIONS:Diligent mHealth app library curation, medical device regulation constraints, and cross-platform differences in mobile phone sensor architectures may all contribute to the observed limited availability of mHealth apps using built-in phone sensors in curated mHealth app libraries. However, more efforts are needed to increase the number of such apps on curated lists, as they offer easily accessible low-cost options to assist people in managing clinical conditions.

Project description:BackgroundThe success of mobile apps in improving the lifestyle of patients with noncommunicable diseases through self-management interventions is contingent upon the emerging growth in this field. While users of mobile health (mHealth) apps continue to grow in number, little is known about the quality of available apps that provide self-management for common noncommunicable diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity.ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the availability, characteristics, and quality of mHealth apps for common noncommunicable disease health management that included dietary aspects (based on the developer's description), as well as their features for promoting health outcomes and self-monitoring.MethodsA systematic search of English-language apps on the Google Play Store (Google LLC) and Apple App Store (Apple Inc) was conducted between August 7, 2022, and September 13, 2022. The search terms used included weight management, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, stroke, and diet. The selected mHealth apps' titles and content were screened based on the description that was provided. Apps that were not designed with self-management features were excluded. We analyzed the mHealth apps by category and whether they involved health care professionals, were based on scientific testing, and had self-monitoring features. A validated and multidimensional tool, the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), was used to evaluate each mHealth app's quality based on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (inadequate) to 5 (excellent).ResultsOverall, 42 apps were identified. Diabetes-specific mHealth apps accounted for 7% (n=3) of the market, hypertension apps for 12% (n=5), and general noncommunicable disease management apps for 21% (n=9). About 38% (n=16) of the apps were for managing chronic diseases, while 74% (n=31) were for weight management. Self-management features such as weight tracking, BMI calculators, diet tracking, and fluid intake tracking were seen in 86% (n=36) of the apps. Most mHealth apps (n=37, 88%) did not indicate whether there was involvement of health professionals in app development. Additionally, none of the apps reported scientific evidence demonstrating their efficacy in managing health. The overall mean MARS score was 3.2 of 5, with a range of 2.0 to 4.1. Functionality was the best-rated category (mean score 3.9, SD 0.5), followed by aesthetics (mean score 3.2, SD 0.9), information (mean score 3.1, SD 0.7), and engagement (mean score 2.9, SD 0.6).ConclusionsThe quality of mHealth apps for managing chronic diseases was heterogeneous, with roughly half of them falling short of acceptable standards for both quality and content. The majority of apps contained scant information about scientific evidence and the developer's history. To increase user confidence and accomplish desired health outcomes, mHealth apps should be optimized with the help of health care professionals. Future studies on mHealth content analysis should focus on other diseases as well.

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mobile mental health apps have become ubiquitous tools to assist people in managing symptoms of anxiety and depression. However, due to the lack of research and expert input that has accompanied the development of most apps, concerns have been raised by clinicians, researchers, and government authorities about their efficacy. OBJECTIVE:This review aimed to estimate the proportion of mental health apps offering comprehensive therapeutic treatments for anxiety and/or depression available in the app stores that have been developed using evidence-based frameworks. It also aimed to estimate the proportions of specific frameworks being used in an effort to understand which frameworks are having the most influence on app developers in this area. METHODS:A systematic review of the Apple App Store and Google Play store was performed to identify apps offering comprehensive therapeutic interventions that targeted anxiety and/or depression. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist was adapted to guide this approach. RESULTS:Of the 293 apps shortlisted as offering a therapeutic treatment for anxiety and/or depression, 162 (55.3%) mentioned an evidence-based framework in their app store descriptions. Of the 293 apps, 88 (30.0%) claimed to use cognitive behavioral therapy techniques, 46 (15.7%) claimed to use mindfulness, 27 (9.2%) claimed to use positive psychology, 10 (3.4%) claimed to use dialectical behavior therapy, 5 (1.7%) claimed to use acceptance and commitment therapy, and 20 (6.8%) claimed to use other techniques. Of the 162 apps that claimed to use a theoretical framework, only 10 (6.2%) had published evidence for their efficacy. CONCLUSIONS:The current proportion of apps developed using evidence-based frameworks is unacceptably low, and those without tested frameworks may be ineffective, or worse, pose a risk of harm to users. Future research should establish what other factors work in conjunction with evidence-based frameworks to produce efficacious mental health apps.

Dataset Information

Health App Review Tool: Matching mobile apps to Alzheimer’s populations (HART Match)

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets