Dataset Information

Mobile Apps for People With Rare Diseases: Review and Quality Assessment Using Mobile App Rating Scale.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mobile 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.

Objective

The 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.

Methods

Google 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.

Results

We 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.

Conclusions

Most 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.

SUBMITTER: Hatem S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9364167 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mobile Apps for People With Rare Diseases: Review and Quality Assessment Using Mobile App Rating Scale.

Hatem Sarah S Long Janet C JC Best Stephanie S Fehlberg Zoe Z Nic Giolla Easpaig Bróna B Braithwaite Jeffrey J

Journal of medical Internet research 20220726 7

<h4>Background</h4>Mobile 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 ...[more]

PMID: 35881435

Similar Datasets

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: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:BackgroundIn China, the current situation of myopia among children and adolescents is very serious. Prevention and control of myopia are inhibited by the lack of medical resources and the low awareness about eye care. Nevertheless, mobile apps provide an effective means to solve these problems. Since the health app market in China is still immature, it has become particularly important to conduct a study to assess the quality of eye-care apps to facilitate the development of better eye-care service strategies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the quality, functionality, medical evidence, and professional background of eye-care apps targeting children and adolescents in the Chinese app stores.MethodsA systematic search on iOS and Android app stores was performed to identify eye-care apps for children and adolescents. The general characteristics, development context, and functional features of the apps were described. Quality assessment of the apps was completed by 2 independent researchers using the Mobile App Rating Scale.ResultsThis study included 29 apps, of which 17 (59%) were developed by commercial organizations and 12 (41%) had a design with relevant scientific basis. The main built-in functions of these apps include self-testing (18/29, 62%), eye exercises (16/29, 55%), and eye-care education (16/29, 55%). The mean overall quality of eye-care apps was 3.49 (SD 0.33), with a score ranging from 2.89 to 4.39. The overall Mobile App Rating Scale score exhibited a significant positive correlation with the subscale scores (r=0.81-0.91; P<.001). In addition, although most apps provided basic eye-care features, there are some deficiencies. For example, only a few apps were developed with the participation of medical organizations or professional ophthalmologists, and most of the apps were updated infrequently, failing to provide the latest eye-care information and technology in a timely manner.ConclusionsIn general, the quality of eye-care apps for children and teenagers in Chinese app stores is good. These apps fulfill users' needs for eye-care services to a certain extent, but they still suffer from insufficient medical background, low user engagement, and untimely updates. In order to further improve the effectiveness of eye-care apps, cooperation with medical institutions and professional ophthalmologists should be strengthened to enhance the scientific and authoritative nature of the apps. At the same time, interactive features and regular updates should be added to enhance user participation and the continuity of the apps. This study provides a reference for future development or improvement of eye-care apps, which can help promote myopia prevention and control.

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:BACKGROUND:The spread of technology and dissemination of knowledge across the World Wide Web has prompted the development of apps for American Sign Language (ASL) translation, interpretation, and syntax recognition. There is limited literature regarding the quality, effectiveness, and appropriateness of mobile health (mHealth) apps for the deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHOH) that pose to aid the DHOH in their everyday communication and activities. Other than the star-rating system with minimal comments regarding quality, the evaluation metrics used to rate mobile apps are commonly subjective. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of DHOH apps using a standardized scale. In addition, it also aimed to identify content-specific criteria to improve the evaluation process by using a content expert, and to use the content expert to more accurately evaluate apps and features supporting the DHOH. METHODS:A list of potential apps for evaluation was generated after a preliminary screening for apps related to the DHOH. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed to refine the master list of apps. The study modified a standardized rating scale with additional content-specific criteria applicable to the DHOH population for app evaluation. This was accomplished by including a DHOH content expert in the design of content-specific criteria. RESULTS:The results indicate a clear distinction in Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) scores among apps within the study's three app categories: ASL translators (highest score=3.72), speech-to-text (highest score=3.6), and hard-of-hearing assistants (highest score=3.90). Of the 217 apps obtained from the search criteria, 21 apps met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, the limited consideration for measures specific to the target population along with a high app turnover rate suggests opportunities for improved app effectiveness and evaluation. CONCLUSIONS:As more mHealth apps enter the market for the DHOH population, more criteria-based evaluation is needed to ensure the safety and appropriateness of the apps for the intended users. Evaluation of population-specific mHealth apps can benefit from content-specific measurement criteria developed by a content expert in the field.

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.

Dataset Information

Mobile Apps for People With Rare Diseases: Review and Quality Assessment Using Mobile App Rating Scale.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Mobile Apps for People With Rare Diseases: Review and Quality Assessment Using Mobile App Rating Scale.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets