Reviewing Mobile Apps for Teaching Human Anatomy: Search and Quality Evaluation Study.

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES JMIR Medical Education Pub Date : 2025-02-14 DOI:10.2196/64550
Guadalupe Esmeralda Rivera García, Miriam Janet Cervantes López, Juan Carlos Ramírez Vázquez, Arturo Llanes Castillo, Jaime Cruz Casados
{"title":"Reviewing Mobile Apps for Teaching Human Anatomy: Search and Quality Evaluation Study.","authors":"Guadalupe Esmeralda Rivera García, Miriam Janet Cervantes López, Juan Carlos Ramírez Vázquez, Arturo Llanes Castillo, Jaime Cruz Casados","doi":"10.2196/64550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mobile apps designed for teaching human anatomy offer a flexible, interactive, and personalized learning platform, enriching the educational experience for both students and health care professionals.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the human anatomy mobile apps available on Google Play, evaluate their quality, highlight the highest scoring apps, and determine the relationship between objective quality ratings and subjective star ratings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) was used to evaluate the apps. The intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated using a consistency-type 2-factor random model to measure the reliability of the evaluations made by the experts. In addition, Pearson correlations were used to analyze the relationship between MARS quality scores and subjective evaluations of MARS quality item 23.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mobile apps with the highest overall quality scores according to the MARS (ie, sections A, B, C, and D) were Organos internos 3D (anatomía) (version 4.34), Sistema óseo en 3D (Anatomía) (version 4.32), and VOKA Anatomy Pro (version 4.29). To measure the reliability of the MARS quality evaluations (sections A, B, C, and D), the intraclass correlation coefficient was used, and the result was \"excellent.\" Finally, Pearson correlation results revealed a significant relationship (r=0.989; P<.001) between the quality assessments conducted by health care professionals and the subjective evaluations of item 23.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The average evaluation results of the selected apps indicated a \"good\" level of quality, and those with the highest ratings could be recommended. However, the lack of scientific backing for these technological tools is evident. It is crucial that research centers and higher education institutions commit to the active development of new mobile health apps, ensuring their accessibility and validation for the general public.</p>","PeriodicalId":36236,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Education","volume":"11 ","pages":"e64550"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/64550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mobile apps designed for teaching human anatomy offer a flexible, interactive, and personalized learning platform, enriching the educational experience for both students and health care professionals.

Objective: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the human anatomy mobile apps available on Google Play, evaluate their quality, highlight the highest scoring apps, and determine the relationship between objective quality ratings and subjective star ratings.

Methods: The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) was used to evaluate the apps. The intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated using a consistency-type 2-factor random model to measure the reliability of the evaluations made by the experts. In addition, Pearson correlations were used to analyze the relationship between MARS quality scores and subjective evaluations of MARS quality item 23.

Results: The mobile apps with the highest overall quality scores according to the MARS (ie, sections A, B, C, and D) were Organos internos 3D (anatomía) (version 4.34), Sistema óseo en 3D (Anatomía) (version 4.32), and VOKA Anatomy Pro (version 4.29). To measure the reliability of the MARS quality evaluations (sections A, B, C, and D), the intraclass correlation coefficient was used, and the result was "excellent." Finally, Pearson correlation results revealed a significant relationship (r=0.989; P<.001) between the quality assessments conducted by health care professionals and the subjective evaluations of item 23.

Conclusions: The average evaluation results of the selected apps indicated a "good" level of quality, and those with the highest ratings could be recommended. However, the lack of scientific backing for these technological tools is evident. It is crucial that research centers and higher education institutions commit to the active development of new mobile health apps, ensuring their accessibility and validation for the general public.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Education
JMIR Medical Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reviewing Mobile Apps for Teaching Human Anatomy: Search and Quality Evaluation Study. Virtual Reality Simulation for Undergraduate Nursing Students for Care of Patients With Infectious Diseases: Mixed Methods Study. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education-Policies and Training at US Osteopathic Medical Schools: Descriptive Cross-Sectional Survey. Integration of an Audiovisual Learning Resource in a Podiatric Medical Infectious Disease Course: Multiple Cohort Pilot Study. Exploring the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Learning Experience, Mental Health, Adaptability, and Resilience Among Health Informatics Master's Students: Focus Group Study.
×
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