Project description:BackgroundGrowing evidence suggests cognitive and social health benefits can be derived from digital storytelling for older adults with cognitive impairment. Digital storytelling apps offer the potential to serve as an on-demand, easy-to-access platform for enhancing cognitive abilities and promoting social well-being. Yet, despite the increasing quantity of such apps being available on the market, there is a gap in research investigating their quality.ObjectiveThis app review aims to assess the digital storytelling apps available in the Chinese market and evaluate them in accordance with the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). The goal was to identify key features and evaluate the overall quality in the context of cognitively impaired users.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in both the Google Play store (Google LLC) and iTunes store (Apple Inc), using English and Chinese keywords. Apps were chosen according to specific criteria that included features, including (but not limited to) memory capture, story saving, cue-based reminiscing, and the ability to share stories or memories with others. The MARS was used by 3 individual researchers to independently assess app quality across several domains, such as engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality, for both Android and iOS apps.ResultsFrom an initial screening of 297 apps, only 9 (3%) met the criteria for detailed evaluation using MARS. The reviewed apps featured capture memory, save, reminisce, and share functions, which are critical in supporting cognitive functions and enhancing user engagement. The analysis revealed patterns in platform diversity and geographical distribution of developers, with apps available on both iOS and Android. Memoirs of Life and Memorize: Diaries, Memories, Notes, Ideas, Timelines, Categories (Fair Apps Mobile) had the highest mean MARS scores of 3.35, indicating strong engagement, functionality, and information quality, while the lowest score was 2.33. The overall mean score across all apps was only 3.03 (SD 0.60), highlighting significant variation, particularly in information quality. User feedback also showed considerable variability, ranging from 0 comments for apps such as Grand Storyteller (VarIT Inc) and PWI Storyteller (Project World Impact, LLC) to as many as 5361 comments for FamilySearch, which received extensive positive reviews. This wide range of user feedback underscores the importance of continuous improvement and user-centered design, particularly in enhancing information quality and content accuracy.ConclusionsThe systematic search and evaluation highlight the diverse capabilities yet variable quality of digital storytelling apps available within the Chinese market, reflecting user experiences, satisfaction levels, and efficacy in supporting cognitively impaired users. While some apps excel in engagement and functionality, others need significant improvements in information quality and user interface design to better serve those with cognitive impairments. Future research is recommended to investigate regional limitations and features that would result in more inclusive and effective digital storytelling apps.

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:BackgroundIt is estimated that 23% of adults and 55% of older adults do not meet the recommended levels of physical activity. Thus, improving the levels of physical activity is of paramount importance, but it requires the use of low-cost resources that facilitate universal access without depleting the health system. The high number of apps available constitutes an opportunity, but it also makes it quite difficult for the layperson to select the most appropriate app. Furthermore, the information available in the app stores is often insufficient, lacks quality, and is not evidence based, and the systematic reviews fail to assess app quality using standardized and validated instruments.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to systematically assess the features, content, and quality of the most popular apps that can be used to measure and, potentially, promote physical activity.MethodsSystematic searches were conducted on Apple App Store, Google Play, and Windows Phone Store between December 2017 and January 2018. Apps were included if their primary objective was to assess the aspects of physical activity, if they had a user rating of at least 4, if their number of ratings was ≥100, and if they were free. Apps meeting these criteria were independently assessed by two reviewers regarding their general and technical information, aspects of physical activity, presence of behavioral change techniques, and quality. Data were analyzed using means and SDs or frequencies and percentages.ResultsOf 51 apps included, none specified the age of the target group and only one mentioned the involvement of health professionals. Most apps offered the possibility to work in background (n=50) and allowed data sharing (n=40). Regarding physical activity, most apps measured steps and distance (n=11) or steps, distance, and time (n=17). Only 18 apps, all of which measured number of steps, followed the guidelines on recommendations for physical activity. On average, 5.5 (SD 1.8) behavioral change techniques were identified per app; the most frequently used techniques were "provide feedback on performance" (n=50) and "prompt self-monitoring of behavior" (n=50). The overall quality score was 3.88 (SD 0.34).ConclusionsAlthough the overall quality of the apps was moderate, the quality of their content, particularly the use of international guidelines on physical activity, should be improved. Additionally, a more in-depth assessment of apps should be performed before releasing them for public use, particularly regarding their reliability and validity.

Project description:BackgroundMobile apps represent accessible and cost-effective tools to improve nutrition and prevent chronic diseases. However, most of these apps have been characterized as having limited functionality, raising concerns about their effectiveness, acceptability, and efficacy.ObjectiveThe aims of the study were to assess the quality of popular nutrition-related app platforms in Spain and to describe their characteristics and functionalities.MethodsWe screened apps providing information on dietary advice, food advice, and nutritional content in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store in Spain from March 2 to March 16, 2024. Apps with a star rating of ≥4 (of 5 stars), those available in Spanish, those that were free of charge, those last updated after January 2022, those with >500 reviews, and those with >500,000 downloads were included. The quality of apps was assessed using the user version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (uMARS). General characteristics and nutritional, health, and market-related functionalities of the nutrition-related apps were described. Correlations among total and uMARS sections, star ratings, and number of reviews and downloads were evaluated.ResultsAmong the 1460 apps identified in the search, 42 apps met the criteria. The majority of these (n=20, 48%) aimed at recording and analyzing food intake, followed by those providing nutritional plans or diets (n=9, 21%), advising on healthy habits (n=7, 17%), and offering recipes (n=6, 14%). The most prevalent nutritional functionalities offered were recording and monitoring body measurements (n=30, 71%), food tracking (n=26, 62%), and dietary analysis (n=25, 60%), whereas nutrition education was less common (n=16, 38%). Among market-related functionalities, advertisements were the most common among the study apps (n=30, 71%), followed by the option of sharing on social media (n=29, 69%) and customizable reminders (n=26, 62%). Sharing the recorded information in the app with health professionals was infrequent (n=1, 2%). The mean (SD) total uMARS score (maximum 5 points) was 3.78 (0.35), while the mean (SD) uMARS scores for functionality, aesthetics, engagement, and information were 4.21 (0.38), 3.94 (0.54), 3.51 (0.46), and 3.48 (0.44), respectively. Lower mean scores were observed for the subjective quality (mean 2.65, SD 0.56) and perceived impact (mean 3.06, SD 0.67). Moderate to strong positive significant correlations were mostly observed between total uMARS and section-specific uMARS scores, while the correlations between the uMARS section scores were mostly moderate positive. Total uMARS scores were very weakly correlated with user rating, number of reviews, and number of downloads.ConclusionsThe quality of popular nutrition-related app platforms in Spain was acceptable, with observed remarkable differences between sections. The majority of the apps were appealing due to their user-friendly interfaces. Only a few apps, however, provided dietary structure analysis or nutritional education. Further research is needed to assess the long-term impact of these apps on users.

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: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: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: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:BackgroundThe global burden of disease attributes 20% of deaths to poor nutrition. Although hundreds of nutrition-related mobile apps have been created, and these have been downloaded by millions of users, the effectiveness of these technologies on the adoption of healthy eating has had mixed.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to review which nutrition-related mobile apps are currently available on the French market and assess their quality.MethodsWe screened apps on the Google Play Store and the French Apple App Store, from March 10 to 17, 2021, to identify those related to nutritional health. A shortlist of 15 apps was identified, and each was assessed using the French version of the Mobile App Rating Scale: 8 dietitians and nutritionists assessed 7 apps, and the remaining apps were randomly allocated to ensure 4 assessments per app. Intraclass correlation was used to evaluate interrater agreement. Means and standard deviations of scores for each section and each item were calculated.ResultsThe top scores for overall quality were obtained by Yazio - Régime et Calories (mean 3.84, SD 0.32), FeelEat (mean 3.71, SD 0.47), and Bonne App (mean 3.65, SD 0.09). Engagement scores ranged from a mean of 1.95 (SD 0.5) for iEatBetter: Journal alimentaire to a mean of 3.85 (SD 0.44) for FeelEat. Functionality scores ranged from a mean of 2.25 (SD 0.54) for Naor to a mean of 4.25 (SD 0.46) for Yazio. Aesthetics scores ranged from a mean of 2.17 (SD 0.34) for Naor to a mean of 3.88 (SD 0.47) for Yazio. Information scores ranged from a mean of 2.38 (SD 0.60) for iEatBetter to a mean of 3.73 (SD 0.29) for Yazio. Subjective quality scores ranged from a mean of 1.13 (SD 0.25) for iEatBetter to a mean of 2.28 (SD 0.88) for Compteur de calories FatSecret. Specificity scores ranged from a mean of 1.38 (SD 0.64) for iEatBetter to a mean of 3.50 (SD 0.91) for FeelEat. The app-specific score was always lower than the subjective quality score, which was always lower than the quality score, which was lower than the rating from the iOS or Android app stores.ConclusionsAlthough prevention and information messages in apps regarding nutritional habits are not scientifically verified before marketing, we found that app quality was good. Subjective quality and specificity were associated with lower ratings. Further investigations are needed to assess whether information from these apps is consistent with recommendations and to determine the long-term impacts of these apps on users.

Dataset Information

Mobile applications to prescribe physical exercise in frail older adults: review of the available tools in app stores

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets