PURPOSE: To review the rating scales used to evaluate usability and quality of mobile health applications, and to compare their purpose, content, and intended target users (i.e., patients, caregivers, or researchers). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature in accordance with the PRISMA statement on Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, IEEE Explore databases, as well as a review of the grey literature to identify rating scales used to evaluate usability and quality of mobile health applications (m-health apps), between January 1, 2000 and July 31, 2018. Two researchers screened the titles and abstracts of articles that met inclusion criteria, and retrieved usability and quality rating scales from the articles. RESULTS: We identified 24 usability scales and 25 quality rating scales in 87 peer-reviewed articles. We identified only one quality rating scale designed for non-expert users (i.e., patients or caregivers). None of the studies used a theoretical framework for app evaluation to support the scales. The validity of existing quality rating scales is yet to be investigated. CONCLUSION: Existing usability and quality rating scales are targeted at professionals, not end users who are patients or caregivers. Rating scales that are usable by all end-users would make mobile health apps accessible and meaningful to consumers.Implications for rehabilitationThe number of mobile health applications on app stores that can be used for rehabilitation is increasing.Most healthcare providers lack the training to identify m-health apps with high quality to be used in rehabilitation.This study has reviewed the current rating scales that can help clinicians and care providers rate the quality of m-health apps and identify the ones that are most appropriate for their practice.
PURPOSE: To review the rating scales used to evaluate usability and quality of mobile health applications, and to compare their purpose, content, and intended target users (i.e., patients, caregivers, or researchers). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature in accordance with the PRISMA statement on Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, IEEE Explore databases, as well as a review of the grey literature to identify rating scales used to evaluate usability and quality of mobile health applications (m-health apps), between January 1, 2000 and July 31, 2018. Two researchers screened the titles and abstracts of articles that met inclusion criteria, and retrieved usability and quality rating scales from the articles. RESULTS: We identified 24 usability scales and 25 quality rating scales in 87 peer-reviewed articles. We identified only one quality rating scale designed for non-expert users (i.e., patients or caregivers). None of the studies used a theoretical framework for app evaluation to support the scales. The validity of existing quality rating scales is yet to be investigated. CONCLUSION: Existing usability and quality rating scales are targeted at professionals, not end users who are patients or caregivers. Rating scales that are usable by all end-users would make mobile health apps accessible and meaningful to consumers.Implications for rehabilitationThe number of mobile health applications on app stores that can be used for rehabilitation is increasing.Most healthcare providers lack the training to identify m-health apps with high quality to be used in rehabilitation.This study has reviewed the current rating scales that can help clinicians and care providers rate the quality of m-health apps and identify the ones that are most appropriate for their practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
E-health; Mobile applications; mobile health; quality evaluation; rating scales; systematic review
Authors: Nicolas Wagneur; Patrick Callier; Jean-David Zeitoun; Denise Silber; Remi Sabatier; Fabrice Denis Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Ruben Martin-Payo; Sergio Carrasco-Santos; Marcelino Cuesta; Stoyan Stoyan; Xana Gonzalez-Mendez; María Del Mar Fernandez-Alvarez Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Martin Hensher; Paul Cooper; Sithara Wanni Arachchige Dona; Mary Rose Angeles; Dieu Nguyen; Natalie Heynsbergh; Mary Lou Chatterton; Anna Peeters Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Milon Biswas; Marzia Hoque Tania; M Shamim Kaiser; Russell Kabir; Mufti Mahmud; Atika Ahmad Kemal Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elisabeth Rb Becker; Ross Shegog; Lara S Savas; Erica L Frost; Sharon P Coan; C Mary Healy; Stanley W Spinner; Sally W Vernon Journal: JMIR Pediatr Parent Date: 2022-02-21