Dataset Information

Review and Analysis of German Mobile Apps for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Management Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients suffering from inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) frequently need long-term medical treatment. Mobile apps promise to complement and improve IBD management, but so far there has been no scientific analysis of their quality.

Objective

This study evaluated the quality of German mobile apps targeting IBD patients and physicians treating IBD patients using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS).

Methods

The German Apple App Store and Google Play Store were systematically searched to identify German IBD mobile apps for patient and physician use. MARS was used by 6 physicians (3 using Android smartphones and 3 using iPhones) to independently assess app quality. Apps were randomly assigned so that the 4 apps with the most downloads were rated by all raters and the remaining apps were rated by 1 Android and 1 iOS user.

Results

In total, we identified 1764 apps in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. After removing apps that were not related to IBD (n=1386) or not available in German (n=317), 61 apps remained. After removing duplicates (n=3) and apps for congresses (n=7), journals (n=4), and clinical studies (n=6), as well as excluding apps that were available in only 1 of the 2 app stores (n=20) and apps that could only be used with an additional device (n=7), we included a total of 14 apps. The app "CED Dokumentation und Tipps" had the highest overall median MARS score at 4.11/5. On the whole, the median MARS scores of the 14 apps ranged between 2.38/5 and 4.11/5. As there was no significant difference between iPhone and Android raters, we used the Wilcoxon comparison test to calculate P values.

Conclusions

The MARS ratings showed that the quality of German IBD apps varied. We also discovered a discrepancy between app store ratings and MARS ratings, highlighting the difficulty of assessing perceived app quality. Despite promising results from international studies, there is little evidence for the clinical benefits of German IBD apps. Clinical studies and patient inclusion in the app development process are needed to effectively implement mobile apps in routine care.

SUBMITTER: Gerner M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9115651 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUsing a mobile app for self-management could make it easier for patients to get insight into their blood pressure patterns. However, little is known about the availability, quality, and features of mobile apps targeting blood pressure.ObjectiveThe goal of the research was to determine the availability, functionality, and quality of mobile apps that could be used for blood pressure monitoring purposes.MethodsA systematic app search was performed based on the standards for systematic reviews. We searched the Dutch official app stores for Android and iOS platforms using predefined keywords and included all English and Dutch mobile apps targeting blood pressure. Two independent assessors determined eligibility and quality of the apps using the 5-point Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Quality scores of the apps with and without 17 a priori selected characteristics were compared using independent sample t tests.ResultsA total of 184 apps (104 Android, 80 iOS) met the inclusion criteria. The mean overall MARS score was 2.63 (95% CI 2.55-2.71) for Android and 2.64 (95% CI 2.56-2.71) for iOS. The apps Bloeddruk (4.1) and AMICOMED BP (3.6) had the highest quality scores on the Android and iOS platforms, respectively. Of the app characteristics recorded, only pricing, in-app advertisements, and local data storage were not associated with the quality scores. In only 3.8% (7/184) of the apps, involvement of medical experts in its development was mentioned, whereas none of the apps was formally evaluated with results published in a peer-reviewed journal.ConclusionsThis study provides an overview of the best apps currently available in the app stores and important key features for self-management that can be used by health care providers and patients with hypertension to identify a suitable app targeting blood pressure monitoring. However, the majority of the apps targeting blood pressure monitoring were of poor quality. Therefore, it is important to involve medical experts in the developmental stage of health-related mobile apps to improve the quality of these apps.

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: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: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:BackgroundPhysical inactivity is a major contributor to the development and persistence of chronic diseases. Mobile health apps that foster physical activity have the potential to assist in behavior change. However, the quality of the mobile health apps available in app stores is hard to assess for making informed decisions by end users and health care providers.ObjectiveThis study aimed at systematically reviewing and analyzing the content and quality of physical activity apps available in the 2 major app stores (Google Play and App Store) by using the German version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G). Moreover, the privacy and security measures were assessed.MethodsA web crawler was used to systematically search for apps promoting physical activity in the Google Play store and App Store. Two independent raters used the MARS-G to assess app quality. Further, app characteristics, content and functions, and privacy and security measures were assessed. The correlation between user star ratings and MARS was calculated. Exploratory regression analysis was conducted to determine relevant predictors for the overall quality of physical activity apps.ResultsOf the 2231 identified apps, 312 met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that the overall quality was moderate (mean 3.60 [SD 0.59], range 1-4.75). The scores of the subscales, that is, information (mean 3.24 [SD 0.56], range 1.17-4.4), engagement (mean 3.19 [SD 0.82], range 1.2-5), aesthetics (mean 3.65 [SD 0.79], range 1-5), and functionality (mean 4.35 [SD 0.58], range 1.88-5) were obtained. An efficacy study could not be identified for any of the included apps. The features of data security and privacy were mainly not applied. Average user ratings showed significant small correlations with the MARS ratings (r=0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.35; P<.001). The amount of content and number of functions were predictive of the overall quality of these physical activity apps, whereas app store and price were not.ConclusionsApps for physical activity showed a broad range of quality ratings, with moderate overall quality ratings. Given the present privacy, security, and evidence concerns inherent to most rated apps, their medical use is questionable. There is a need for open-source databases of expert quality ratings to foster informed health care decisions by users and health care providers.

Project description:BackgroundThe number of mobile health (mHealth) apps released for musculoskeletal (MSK) injury treatment and self-management with home exercise programs (HEPs) has risen rapidly in recent years as digital health interventions are explored and researched in more detail. As this number grows, it is becoming increasingly difficult for users to navigate the market and select the most appropriate app for their use case. It is also unclear what features the developers of these apps are harnessing to support patient self-management and how they fit into clinical care pathways.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to scope the current market of mHealth apps for MSK rehabilitation and to report on their features, claims, evidence base, and functionalities.MethodsA cross-sectional study of apps for MSK rehabilitation was performed across the iTunes App Store and Google Play Store. Four search terms were used, namely, physiotherapy rehabilitation, physical therapy rehabilitation, rehabilitation exercise, and therapeutic exercise to identify apps, which were then cross-referenced against set selection criteria by 4 reviewers. Each reviewer, where possible, downloaded the app and accessed supplementary literature available on the product to assist in data extraction.ResultsA total of 1322 apps were identified. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria and removing duplicates, 144 apps were included in the study. Over half (n=81, 56.3%) of the included apps had been released within the past 3 years. Three quarters (n=107, 74.3%) of the apps made no reference to evidence supporting the design or efficacy of the app, with only 11.1% (n=16) providing direct citations to research. Most of the apps did utilize exercise pictures (n=138, 95.8%) or videos (n=97, 67.4%); however, comparatively few harnessed additional features to encourage engagement and support self-management, such as an adherence log (n=66, 45.8%), communication portal (n=32, 22.2%), patient-reported outcome capture (n=36, 25%), or direct feedback (n=57, 39.6%). Of note and concern, many of these apps prescribed generic exercises (n=93, 64.6%) in the absence of individualized input to the user, with few providing specific patient education (n=43, 34%) and safety advice or disclaimers (n=38, 26.4%).ConclusionsThe cohort of apps included in this study contained a large heterogeneity of features, so it is difficult for users to identify the most appropriate or effective app. Many apps are missing the opportunity to offer key features that could promote exercise adherence and encourage self-management in MSK rehabilitation. Furthermore, very few developers currently offering products on the market are providing evidence to support the design and efficacy of their technologies.

Project description:BackgroundWomen are increasingly turning to mobile health platforms to receive health information and support in pregnancy, yet the content of these platforms vary. Although there is great potential to influence health behaviors, little research has assessed the quality of these platforms or their ability to change behavior. In recent years, validated tools to assess app quality have become available.ObjectiveTo identify and assess the quality and ongoing popularity of the top 10 freely available pregnancy apps in Australia using validated tools.MethodsA systematic search on app stores to identify apps was performed. A Google Play search used subject terms pregnancy, parenting, and childbirth; the iTunes search used alternative categories medical and health and fitness. The top 250 apps from each store were cross-referenced, and the top 100 found in both Google Play and iTunes were screened for eligibility. Apps that provided health information or advice for pregnancy were included. Excluded apps focused on nonhealth information (eg, baby names). The top 10 pregnancy apps were assessed using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). A comparative analysis was conducted at 2 time points over 2 years to assess the ongoing popularity of the apps. The MARS score was compared to the download and star rating data collected from iTunes and Google Play in 2017 and 2019. Health behaviors including breastfeeding, healthy pregnancy weight, and maternal awareness of fetal movements were reviewed for apparent impact on the user's knowledge, attitudes, and behavior change intentions using the MARS perceived impact section and the Coventry, Aberdeen, and London-Refined (CALO-RE) taxonomy.ResultsA total of 2052 free apps were screened for eligibility, 1397 were excluded, and 655 were reviewed and scored. The top 10 apps were selected using download numbers and star ratings. All 10 apps were suboptimal in quality, practicality, and functionality. It was not possible to identify a primary purpose for all apps, and there was overlap in purpose for many. The mean overall MARS app quality score across all 10 apps was 3.01 (range 1.97-4.40) in 2017 and 3.40 (range 2.27-4.44) in 2019. A minority of apps scored well for perceived impact on health behavior using the MARS tool. Using the CALO-RE 40 item taxonomy, the number of behavior change techniques used was low. The mean number of behavior change techniques for breastfeeding was 5 (range 2-11), for pregnancy weight was 4 (range 2-12), and for maternal awareness of fetal movements was 5 (range 2-8).ConclusionsThis review provides valuable information to clinicians and consumers about the quality of apps currently available for pregnancy in Australia. Consideration is needed regarding the regulation of information and the potential opportunity to incorporate behavior change techniques to improve maternal and fetal outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundAs a computerized drug-drug interaction (DDI) alert system has not been widely implemented in China, health care providers are relying on mobile health (mHealth) apps as references for checking drug information, including DDIs.ObjectiveThe main objective of this study was to evaluate the quality and content of mHealth apps supporting DDI checking in Chinese app stores.MethodsA systematic review was carried out in November 2020 to identify mHealth apps providing DDI checking in both Chinese iOS and Android platforms. We extracted the apps' general information (including the developer, operating system, costs, release date, size, number of downloads, and average rating), scientific or clinical basis, and accountability, based on a multidimensional framework for evaluation of apps. The quality of mHealth apps was evaluated by using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Descriptive statistics, including numbers and percentages, were calculated to describe the characteristics of the apps. For each app selected for evaluation, the section-specific MARS scores were calculated by taking the arithmetic mean, while the overall MARS score was described as the arithmetic mean of the section scores. In addition, the Cohen kappa (κ) statistic was used to evaluate the interrater agreement.ResultsA total of 7 apps met the selection criteria, and only 3 included citations. The average rating score for Android apps was 3.5, with a minimum of 1.0 and a maximum of 4.9, while the average rating score for iOS apps was 4.7, with a minimum of 4.2 and a maximum of 4.9. The mean MARS score was 3.69 out of 5 (95% CI 3.34-4.04), with the lowest score of 1.96 for Medication Guidelines and the highest score of 4.27 for MCDEX mobile. The greatest variation was observed in the information section, which ranged from 1.41 to 4.60. The functionality section showed the highest mean score of 4.05 (95% CI 3.71-4.40), whereas the engagement section resulted in the lowest average score of 3.16 (95% CI 2.81-3.51). For the information quality section, which was the focus of this analysis, the average score was 3.42, with the MCDEX mobile app having the highest score of 4.6 and the Medication Guidelines app having the lowest score of 1.9. For the overall MARS score, the Cohen interrater κ was 0.354 (95% CI 0.236-0.473), the Fleiss κ was 0.353 (95% CI, 0.234-0.472), and the Krippendorff α was 0.356 (95% CI 0.237-0.475).ConclusionsThis study systematically reviewed the mHealth apps in China with a DDI check feature. The majority of investigated apps demonstrated high quality with accurate and comprehensive information on DDIs. However, a few of the apps that had a massive number of downloads in the Chinese market provided incorrect information. Given these apps might be used by health care providers for checking potential DDIs, this creates a substantial threat to patient safety.