| Literature DB >> 35912404 |
Yasir Ali1, Habib Ullah Khan2.
Abstract
The significant proliferation in the mobile health applications (Apps) amidst Coronaviruses disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in decision making problems for healthcare professionals, decision makers and mobile users in Pakistan. This decision making process is also hampered by mobile app trade-offs, multiple features support, evolving healthcare needs and varying vendors. In this regard, evaluation model for mobile apps is presented which completes in three different phases. In first phase, features-based criteria is designed by leveraging Delphi method, and twenty (20) mobile apps are selected from app stores. In second stage, empirical evaluation is performed by using hybrid multi criteria decision approaches like CRiteria Importance Through Inter-criteria Correlation (CRITIC) method has been used for assigning weights to criteria features; and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method has been used for assessment of mobile app alternatives. In last step, decision making is performed to select the best mobile app for COVID-19 situations. The results suggest that proposed model can be adopted as a guideline by mobile app subscribers, patients and healthcare professionals.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Coronavirus; Mobile app evaluation framework; Pakistan; SARS-CoV-2; Smartphone applications
Year: 2022 PMID: 35912404 PMCID: PMC9323267 DOI: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2022.108260
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Electr Eng ISSN: 0045-7906 Impact factor: 4.152
Comparison of proposed work with existing evaluation approaches
| Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool | Risk assessment | (-) Theoretical comparison | |
| Systems Wide Analysis Tool (SWAT) | Usability, functionality, Ethical issues, Security, Design, Perception, information and content | (-) Scoring system can be biased | |
| Theoretical approach for app analysis | APIs, Network security, Permission level, Network traffic. Location etc. | (-) Focusing only on the contact tracing mobile apps | |
| COVIDGUARDIAN | Manifest weakness, Personally Identifiable Information (PII)leaks, Vulnerabilities, Malware detection | (-) Focusing only on the contact tracing mobile apps | |
| Literature based study | Privacy, Installation Permissions and User reviews | (-) Restricted to study only contact tracing apps | |
| Covid Tracing App Scale (COVIDTAS) framework | Security, usability, accessibility, data management, public ownership, Transparency rights, play store rating etc | (-) Focusing only on the contact tracing mobile apps | |
| Literature based systematic review | Knowledge, Tracing, Home monitoring, Online consultation, | (-) Some important criteria features are missing | |
| Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) | Engagement, Functionality Aesthetics Information Subjective App- Specific score | (-) Empirical analysis is required | |
| COVIGILANT Taxonomy | Availability, Subjective Satisfaction, Universality, Design effectiveness, User interaction | (-) Only usability aspects of apps are included | |
| Proposed Work | COVID-19 Empirical Assessment Model | Privacy, Information provision, Design, Usability, Telemedicine | (+) Based on mathematical and statistical approach |
Fig. 1Structure of evaluation framework
Fig. 2Categories of mobile apps in Pakistan
Fig. 3Mobile apps selection procedure
Fig. 4Taxonomy of criteria features
Fig. 5Features and alternatives interdependency and hierarchy
Fig. 6Data collection using Delphi method
Keyword description
| “Leak”, “Permission”, “Breach”, “Confidentiality”, “Malware” “Phish”, “virus”, “Malware”, “Hack”, | Privacy & security | Privacy issues related to invasion of personal information of users |
| “Adware”, “Spam”, “Add”, “Advertisement” | Spam | Issues related to unwanted and unpleasant ads on |
| “Crash”, “Slow”, “Restart”, “Battery”, “ Hang”, “Bug” | System | Issues about creating negative effects on mobile devices |
Fig. 7Privacy score values and number of mobile app permissions
Criteria weights
| 6.054 | 0.411 | 2.488 | |
| 2.020 | 0.556 | 1.123 | |
| 3.177 | 0.529 | 1.680 | |
| 2.623 | 0.586 | 1.538 | |
| 3.324 | 0.677 | 2.250 | |
| 3.914 | 0.550 | 2.153 | |
| 2.500 | 0.598 | 1.496 | |
| 2.521 | 0.620 | 1.562 | |
| 3.811 | 0.965 | 3.677 |
Fig. 8Criteria weights
Ideal positive (A+) and ideal negative (A−) solutions
| 0.042 | 0.038 | 0.037 | 0.033 | 0.070 | 0.102 | 0.048 | 0.061 | 0.080 | |
| 0.016 | 0.003 | 0.014 | 0.012 | 0.005 | 0.015 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
Ideal separation measures and relative closeness (Ci)
| 0.100 | 0.072 | 0.172 | 0.4164 | |
| 0.100 | 0.058 | 0.158 | 0.3664 | |
| 0.075 | 0.090 | 0.165 | 0.5455 | |
| 0.093 | 0.093 | 0.185 | 0.5000 | |
| 0.102 | 0.080 | 0.182 | 0.4411 | |
| 0.099 | 0.069 | 0.168 | 0.4101 | |
| 0.101 | 0.067 | 0.168 | 0.4002 | |
| 0.106 | 0.066 | 0.172 | 0.3840 | |
| 0.117 | 0.065 | 0.182 | 0.3564 | |
| 0.113 | 0.061 | 0.174 | 0.3511 | |
| 0.127 | 0.045 | 0.172 | 0.2635 | |
| 0.133 | 0.038 | 0.171 | 0.2195 | |
| 0.126 | 0.045 | 0.171 | 0.2622 | |
| 0.082 | 0.109 | 0.191 | 0.5690 | |
| 0.123 | 0.050 | 0.172 | 0.2882 | |
| 0.136 | 0.025 | 0.161 | 0.1526 | |
| 0.133 | 0.029 | 0.163 | 0.1812 | |
| 0.128 | 0.043 | 0.171 | 0.2532 | |
| 0.121 | 0.050 | 0.171 | 0.2935 | |
| 0.131 | 0.036 | 0.167 | 0.2134 |
Fig. 9Mobile apps performance ranking
Recommendations classification
| Recommended | a | c |
| Not recommended | b | d |
Calculating evaluation metrics
| 1 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 91% | 92% | 91% |
| 2 | 13 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 96% | 93% | 100% |
| 3 | 19 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 93% | 100% | 90% |
| 4 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 92% | 92% | 92% |
| 5 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 93% | 89% | 100% |
| 6 | 21 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 88% | 87.5% | 91% |
| 7 | 14 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 92% | 88% | 100% |
| 8 | 22 | 1 | 0 | 25 | 98% | 100% | 96% |
| 9 | 31 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 93% | 91% | 100% |
| 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 03 | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Comparison of proposed work with SAW technique
| 4.393 | 13 | 0.4164 | 5 | |
| 3.947 | 18 | 0.3664 | 9 | |
| 5.695 | 2 | 0.5455 | 2 | |
| 5.667 | 3 | 0.5000 | 3 | |
| 4.654 | 8 | 0.4411 | 4 | |
| 4.663 | 11 | 0.4101 | 6 | |
| 4.121 | 16 | 0.4002 | 7 | |
| 4.329 | 10 | 0.3840 | 8 | |
| 4.363 | 12 | 0.3564 | 10 | |
| 4.153 | 15 | 0.3511 | 11 | |
| 4.676 | 7 | 0.2635 | 14 | |
| 4.214 | 14 | 0.2195 | 18 | |
| 4.829 | 6 | 0.2622 | 15 | |
| 4.985 | 5 | 0.2882 | 13 | |
| 3.58 | 20 | 0.1526 | 20 | |
| 3.802 | 19 | 0.1812 | 19 | |
| 4.609 | 9 | 0.2532 | 16 | |
| 5.096 | 4 | 0.2935 | 12 | |
| 4.035 | 17 | 0.2134 | 17 | |
Comparison with similar studies
| Ref | ||
|---|---|---|
| Ming et al. | Score based assessment | Some important criteria features are missing Empirical analysis is required Subjectivity is also a concern in assigning weightage values |
| Salehinejad et al. [ | MARS Scale | Lack of empirical analysis Subjectivity problem Heterogeneity of mobile apps Information scoring requires advanced method COVID-19 specific features are not included |
| Proposed Work | CRITIC AND TOPSIS | A full-pledged criteria with general and COVID-19 specific features Supported by empirical and quantitative procedure Subjectivity is removed by using CRITIC Hybrid multi criteria decision making support |