Dataset Information

ACCU3RATE: A mobile health application rating scale based on user reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Over the last decade, mobile health applications (mHealth App) have evolved exponentially to assess and support our health and well-being.

Objective

This paper presents an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enabled mHealth app rating tool, called ACCU3RATE, which takes multidimensional measures such as user star rating, user review and features declared by the developer to generate the rating of an app. However, currently, there is very little conceptual understanding on how user reviews affect app rating from a multi-dimensional perspective. This study applies AI-based text mining technique to develop more comprehensive understanding of user feedback based on several important factors, determining the mHealth app ratings.

Method

Based on the literature, six variables were identified that influence the mHealth app rating scale. These factors are user star rating, user text review, user interface (UI) design, functionality, security and privacy, and clinical approval. Natural Language Toolkit package is used for interpreting text and to identify the App users' sentiment. Additional considerations were accessibility, protection and privacy, UI design for people living with physical disability. Moreover, the details of clinical approval, if exists, were taken from the developer's statement. Finally, we fused all the inputs using fuzzy logic to calculate the new app rating score.

Results and conclusions

ACCU3RATE concentrates on heart related Apps found in the play store and App gallery. The findings indicate the efficacy of the proposed method as opposed to the current device scale. This study has implications for both App developers and consumers who are using mHealth Apps to monitor and track their health. The performance evaluation shows that the proposed mHealth scale has shown excellent reliability as well as internal consistency of the scale, and high inter-rater reliability index. It has also been noticed that the fuzzy based rating scale, as in ACCU3RATE, matches more closely to the rating performed by experts.

SUBMITTER: Biswas M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8675707 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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:There has recently been exponential growth in the development and use of health apps on mobile phones. As with most mobile apps, however, the majority of users abandon them quickly and after minimal use. One of the most critical factors for the success of a health app is how to support users' commitment to their health. Despite increased interest from researchers in mobile health, few studies have examined the measurement of user engagement with health apps. OBJECTIVE:User engagement is a multidimensional, complex phenomenon. The aim of this study was to understand the concept of user engagement and, in particular, to demonstrate the applicability of a user engagement scale (UES) to mobile health apps. METHODS:To determine the measurability of user engagement in a mobile health context, a UES was employed, which is a psychometric tool to measure user engagement with a digital system. This was adapted to Ada, developed by Ada Health, an artificial intelligence-powered personalized health guide that helps people understand their health. A principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was conducted on 30 items. In addition, sum scores as means of each subscale were calculated. RESULTS:Survey data from 73 Ada users were analyzed. PCA was determined to be suitable, as verified by the sampling adequacy of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin=0.858, a significant Bartlett test of sphericity (?2300=1127.1; P<.001), and communalities mostly within the 0.7 range. Although 5 items had to be removed because of low factor loadings, the results of the remaining 25 items revealed 4 attributes: perceived usability, aesthetic appeal, reward, and focused attention. Ada users showed the highest engagement level with perceived usability, with a value of 294, followed by aesthetic appeal, reward, and focused attention. CONCLUSIONS:Although the UES was deployed in German and adapted to another digital domain, PCA yielded consistent subscales and a 4-factor structure. This indicates that user engagement with health apps can be assessed with the German version of the UES. These results can benefit related mobile health app engagement research and may be of importance to marketers and app developers.

Project description:Introduction: Mobile applications promise to improve current health care. However, current mobile app quality ratings are mostly physician-based. The aim of this study was (1) to assess the quality of the self-management app Rheuma Auszeit using the validated uMARS (User Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale) app quality assessment tool and (2) to evaluate the association between uMARS scores and patients' characteristics. Materials and Methods: Consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and spondyloarthritis were seen at the rheumatology clinic at university hospital Erlangen, Germany. They were asked to test Rheuma Auszeit, evaluate its quality using uMARS and complete a paper-based survey evaluating the individual preferences, attitudes and ehealth literacy. The association between uMARS scores and patients' characteristics was further explored. Results: Between December 2018 and January 2019, a total of 126 patients evaluated Rheuma Auszeit using uMARS and filled out the paper-based survey. The median uMARS score was 3.9, IQR 0.7. Functionality was the domain with the highest rating (median 4.8, IQR 0.8), followed by aesthetics (median 4.0, IQR 0.7), information (median 3.5, IQR 0.8), and engagement (median 3.2, IQR 1.0). Subjective quality was average (median 3.0, IQR 1.0). The lowest scoring individual item was customization with a median of 2.5/5. Lower functionality scores were reported among older female rheumatic patients (P < 0.004). Older male rheumatic patients reported a higher subjective quality score (P < 0.024). Perceived disease activity and disease duration did not significantly correlate with any uMARS subdomain scores. eHealth literacy significantly correlated with functionality uMARS subdomain ratings (Rho = 0.18; P < 0.042). Preferred time of app usage significantly correlated with engagement (Rho = 0.20; P < 0.024), functionality (Rho = 0.19; P < 0.029), total uMARS score (Rho = 0.21; P < 0.017) and subjective quality score (Rho = 0.21; P < 0.017). The vast majority of rheumatic patients would consider recommending Rheuma Auszeit to other patients (117/126; 92.9%). Conclusion: Rheuma Auszeit was well-accepted by German patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondyloarthritis. Lacking customization could lead to low app compliance and should be improved. Lower functionality scores among older female rheumatic patients highlight the need for patient education. The study underlines the potential and feasibility of therapeutic complementary digital solutions in rheumatology.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The use of health apps to support the treatment of chronic pain is gaining importance. Most available pain management apps are still lacking in content quality and quantity as their developers neither involve health experts to ensure target group suitability nor use gamification to engage and motivate the user. To close this gap, we aimed to develop a gamified pain management app, Pain-Mentor. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether medical professionals would approve of Pain-Mentor's concept and content, this study aimed to evaluate the quality of the app's first prototype with experts from the field of chronic pain management and to discover necessary improvements. METHODS:A total of 11 health professionals with a background in chronic pain treatment and 2 mobile health experts participated in this study. Each expert first received a detailed presentation of the app. Afterward, they tested Pain-Mentor and then rated its quality using the mobile application rating scale (MARS) in a semistructured interview. RESULTS:The experts found the app to be of excellent general (mean 4.54, SD 0.55) and subjective quality (mean 4.57, SD 0.43). The app-specific section was rated as good (mean 4.38, SD 0.75). Overall, the experts approved of the app's content, namely, pain and stress management techniques, behavior change techniques, and gamification. They believed that the use of gamification in Pain-Mentor positively influences the patients' motivation and engagement and thus has the potential to promote the learning of pain management techniques. Moreover, applying the MARS in a semistructured interview provided in-depth insight into the ratings and concrete suggestions for improvement. CONCLUSIONS:The experts rated Pain-Mentor to be of excellent quality. It can be concluded that experts perceived the use of gamification in this pain management app in a positive manner. This showed that combining pain management with gamification did not negatively affect the app's integrity. This study was therefore a promising first step in the development of Pain-Mentor.

Project description: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.