Quality assessment of mHealth apps: a scoping review.

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Frontiers in health services Pub Date : 2024-05-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frhs.2024.1372871
Godwin Denk Giebel, Christian Speckemeier, Nils Frederik Schrader, Carina Abels, Felix Plescher, Vivienne Hillerich, Desiree Wiedemann, Kirstin Börchers, Jürgen Wasem, Nikola Blase, Silke Neusser
{"title":"Quality assessment of mHealth apps: a scoping review.","authors":"Godwin Denk Giebel, Christian Speckemeier, Nils Frederik Schrader, Carina Abels, Felix Plescher, Vivienne Hillerich, Desiree Wiedemann, Kirstin Börchers, Jürgen Wasem, Nikola Blase, Silke Neusser","doi":"10.3389/frhs.2024.1372871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The number of mHealth apps has increased rapidly during recent years. Literature suggests a number of problems and barriers to the adoption of mHealth apps, including issues such as validity, usability, as well as data privacy and security. Continuous quality assessment and assurance systems might help to overcome these barriers. Aim of this scoping review was to collate literature on quality assessment tools and quality assurance systems for mHealth apps, compile the components of the tools, and derive overarching quality dimensions, which are potentially relevant for the continuous quality assessment of mHealth apps.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Literature searches were performed in Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo. Articles in English or German language were included if they contained information on development, application, or validation of generic concepts of quality assessment or quality assurance of mHealth apps. Screening and extraction were carried out by two researchers independently. Identified quality criteria and aspects were extracted and clustered into quality dimensions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 70 publications met inclusion criteria. Included publications contain information on five quality assurance systems and further 24 quality assessment tools for mHealth apps. Of these 29 systems/tools, 8 were developed for the assessment of mHealth apps for specific diseases, 16 for assessing mHealth apps for all fields of health and another five are not restricted to health apps. Identified quality criteria and aspects were extracted and grouped into a total of 14 quality dimensions, namely \"information and transparency\", \"validity and (added) value\", \"(medical) safety\", \"interoperability and compatibility\", \"actuality\", \"engagement\", \"data privacy and data security\", \"usability and design\", \"technology\", \"organizational aspects\", \"social aspects\", \"legal aspects\", \"equity and equality\", and \"cost(-effectiveness)\".</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This scoping review provides a broad overview of existing quality assessment and assurance systems. Many of the tools included cover only a few dimensions and aspects and therefore do not allow for a comprehensive quality assessment or quality assurance. Our findings can contribute to the development of continuous quality assessment and assurance systems for mHealth apps.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>https://www.researchprotocols.org/2022/7/e36974/, International Registered Report Identifier, IRRID (DERR1-10.2196/36974).</p>","PeriodicalId":73088,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in health services","volume":"4 ","pages":"1372871"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11094264/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in health services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2024.1372871","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The number of mHealth apps has increased rapidly during recent years. Literature suggests a number of problems and barriers to the adoption of mHealth apps, including issues such as validity, usability, as well as data privacy and security. Continuous quality assessment and assurance systems might help to overcome these barriers. Aim of this scoping review was to collate literature on quality assessment tools and quality assurance systems for mHealth apps, compile the components of the tools, and derive overarching quality dimensions, which are potentially relevant for the continuous quality assessment of mHealth apps.

Methods: Literature searches were performed in Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo. Articles in English or German language were included if they contained information on development, application, or validation of generic concepts of quality assessment or quality assurance of mHealth apps. Screening and extraction were carried out by two researchers independently. Identified quality criteria and aspects were extracted and clustered into quality dimensions.

Results: A total of 70 publications met inclusion criteria. Included publications contain information on five quality assurance systems and further 24 quality assessment tools for mHealth apps. Of these 29 systems/tools, 8 were developed for the assessment of mHealth apps for specific diseases, 16 for assessing mHealth apps for all fields of health and another five are not restricted to health apps. Identified quality criteria and aspects were extracted and grouped into a total of 14 quality dimensions, namely "information and transparency", "validity and (added) value", "(medical) safety", "interoperability and compatibility", "actuality", "engagement", "data privacy and data security", "usability and design", "technology", "organizational aspects", "social aspects", "legal aspects", "equity and equality", and "cost(-effectiveness)".

Discussion: This scoping review provides a broad overview of existing quality assessment and assurance systems. Many of the tools included cover only a few dimensions and aspects and therefore do not allow for a comprehensive quality assessment or quality assurance. Our findings can contribute to the development of continuous quality assessment and assurance systems for mHealth apps.

Systematic review registration: https://www.researchprotocols.org/2022/7/e36974/, International Registered Report Identifier, IRRID (DERR1-10.2196/36974).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
移动医疗应用程序的质量评估:范围界定审查。
简介近年来,移动医疗应用程序的数量迅速增加。文献表明,采用移动医疗应用程序存在一些问题和障碍,包括有效性、可用性以及数据隐私和安全性等问题。持续质量评估和保证系统可能有助于克服这些障碍。本范围综述旨在整理有关移动医疗应用程序质量评估工具和质量保证体系的文献,汇编这些工具的组成部分,并推导出可能与移动医疗应用程序持续质量评估相关的总体质量维度:方法:在 Medline、EMBASE 和 PsycInfo 中进行文献检索。如果英文或德文文章中包含有关移动医疗应用程序质量评估或质量保证通用概念的开发、应用或验证的信息,则将其纳入检索范围。筛选和提取工作由两名研究人员独立完成。对确定的质量标准和方面进行提取,并按质量维度进行分类:共有 70 篇出版物符合纳入标准。纳入的出版物包含 5 个质量保证系统和 24 个移动医疗应用程序质量评估工具的信息。在这 29 个系统/工具中,8 个是为评估特定疾病的移动医疗应用程序而开发的,16 个是为评估所有健康领域的移动医疗应用程序而开发的,另外 5 个不限于健康应用程序。对已确定的质量标准和方面进行了提取,并将其归纳为总共 14 个质量维度,即 "信息和透明度"、"有效性和(附加)价值"、"(医疗)安全性"、"互操作性和兼容性"、"实际性"、"参与性"、"数据隐私和数据安全"、"可用性和设计"、"技术"、"组织方面"、"社会方面"、"法律方面"、"公平和平等 "以及 "成本(-效果)":本次范围界定审查对现有的质量评估和保证体系进行了广泛的概述。其中许多工具只涉及几个方面,因此无法进行全面的质量评估或质量保证。我们的研究结果有助于为移动医疗应用程序开发持续的质量评估和保证系统。系统综述注册:https://www.researchprotocols.org/2022/7/e36974/,国际注册报告标识符 IRRID (DERR1-10.2196/36974)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Implementation of a mobile prosthetic and orthotic care program in the VA; a qualitative study of implementation challenges and associated strategies for improvement. Creating demand for unmet needs: Agile Storytelling. Editorial: Digital health applications: acceptance, benefit assessment, and costs from the perspective of patients and medical professionals. Reported roles of care partners in a specialized weaning centre-perspectives of patients, care partners, and health care providers. Longitudinal analysis of culture of patient safety survey results in surgical departments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1