| Literature DB >> 32130171 |
Florian Dittrich1, David Alexander Back2, Anna Katharina Harren3, Marcus Jäger4, Stefan Landgraeber1, Felix Reinecke5, Sascha Beck1,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ankle sprains are one of the most frequent sports injuries. With respect to the high prevalence of ankle ligament injuries and patients' young age, optimizing treatment and rehabilitation is mandatory to prevent future complications such as chronic ankle instability or osteoarthritis.Entities:
Keywords: ankle sprain; mHealth; mobile phone; rehabilitation; self-care; smartphone
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32130171 PMCID: PMC7066508 DOI: 10.2196/16403
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Figure 1App screen view: (a) timeline-based aftercare plan, (b) information, and (c) training videos.
Figure 2App screen view: (a) collection of patient-related data and (b) log function of patient-related data.
Figure 3Mean scores of the (user) German Mobile App Rating Scale for the Ankle Joint App (surgeons: n=20 and athletes: n=20).
Detailed results of the (user) German Mobile App Rating Scale.
| Subscale | MARS-Ga surgeons | uMARS-Gb athletes | |||||
|
| Minimum | Maximum | Mean (SD) | Minimum | Maximum | Mean (SD) | |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| Entertainment | 3 | 5 | 4.4 (0.9) | 3 | 5 | 4.1 (0.7) |
|
| Interest | 3 | 5 | 4.3 (0.9) | 2 | 5 | 4.4 (0.9) |
|
| Customization | 2 | 5 | 3.8 (0.8) | 2 | 5 | 3.6 (0.9) |
|
| Interactivity | 3 | 5 | 4.2 (0.7) | 2 | 5 | 4.3 (0.9) |
|
| Target group | 4 | 5 | 4.6 (0.5) | 4 | 5 | 4.6 (0.5) |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| Performance | 4 | 5 | 5.0 (0.2) | 3 | 5 | 4.8 (0.6) |
|
| Usability | 4 | 5 | 4.6 (0.5) | 3 | 5 | 4.6 (0.6) |
|
| Navigation | 4 | 5 | 4.6 (0.5) | 3 | 5 | 4.5 (0.7) |
|
| Gestural design | 4 | 5 | 4.5 (0.5) | 4 | 5 | 4.5 (0.5) |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| Layout | 3 | 5 | 4.4 (0.8) | 3 | 5 | 4.5 (0.6) |
|
| Graphics | 4 | 5 | 4.6 (0.5) | 3 | 5 | 4.5 (0.6) |
|
| Visual appeal | 3 | 5 | 4.1 (0.7) | 3 | 5 | 4.3 (0.7) |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| Accuracy of app description (in app store) | 3 | 5 | 4.8 (0.5) | —c | — | — |
|
| Goals | 3 | 5 | 4.3 (0.6) | — | — | — |
|
| Quality of information | 3 | 5 | 4.5 (0.8) | 4 | 5 | 4.7 (0.5) |
|
| Quantity of information | 4 | 5 | 4.8 (0.4) | 3 | 5 | 4.9 (0.5) |
|
| Visual information | 4 | 5 | 4.3 (0.5) | 3 | 5 | 4.5 (0.6) |
|
| Credibility | 3 | 5 | 4.0 (0.9) | 2 | 5 | 3.8 (1.0) |
|
| Evidence base | 2 | 5 | 4.0 (1.1) | — | — | — |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| Gain for patients | 3 | 5 | 4.3 (0.8) | — | — | — |
|
| Gain for physicians | 2 | 5 | 3.8 (0.9) | — | — | — |
|
| Risks, side and adverse effects | 3 | 5 | 4.5 (0.6) | — | — | — |
|
| Transferability into routine care | 2 | 5 | 3.3 (1.0) | — | — | — |
|
| |||||||
|
| Would you recommend this app to people who might benefit from it? | 3 | 5 | 4.4 (0.9) | 3 | 5 | 4.3 (0.7) |
|
| How many times do you think you would use this app in the next 12 months if it was relevant to you? | 1 | 5 | 3.2 (1.2) | 2 | 5 | 3.9 (0.7) |
|
| Would you pay for this app? | 1 | 3 | 2.0 (0.7) | 1 | 3 | 2.4 (0.8) |
|
| What is your overall star rating of the app? | 4 | 5 | 4.6 (0.5) | 3 | 5 | 4.6 (0.6) |
|
| |||||||
|
| Awareness | 2 | 5 | 4.5 (0.8) | 3 | 5 | 4.6 (0.6) |
|
| Knowledge | 3 | 5 | 4.6 (0.6) | 3 | 5 | 4.8 (0.6) |
|
| Attitudes | 2 | 5 | 3.7 (0.9) | 3 | 5 | 4.3 (0.7) |
|
| Intention to change | 3 | 5 | 3.9 (0.8) | 4 | 5 | 4.4 (0.5) |
|
| Help seeking | 2 | 5 | 4.1 (1.0) | 2 | 5 | 3.8 (1.0) |
|
| Behavior change | 2 | 5 | 4.0 (0.9) | 3 | 5 | 4.3 (0.8) |
aMARS-G: German Mobile App Rating Scale.
buMARS-G: (user) German Mobile App Rating Scale.
cNot applicable.