Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar 10;4(1):46.
doi: 10.1038/s41746-021-00410-x.

Assessing the quality of mobile applications in chronic disease management: a scoping review

Affiliations

Assessing the quality of mobile applications in chronic disease management: a scoping review

Payal Agarwal et al. NPJ Digit Med. .

Abstract

While there has been a rapid growth of digital health apps to support chronic diseases, clear standards on how to best evaluate the quality of these evolving tools are absent. This scoping review aims to synthesize the emerging field of mobile health app quality assessment by reviewing criteria used by previous studies to assess the quality of mobile apps for chronic disease management. A literature review was conducted in September 2017 for published studies that use a set of quality criteria to directly evaluate two or more patient-facing apps supporting promote chronic disease management. This resulted in 8182 citations which were reviewed by research team members, resulting in 65 articles for inclusion. An inductive coding schema to synthesize the quality criteria utilized by included articles was developed, with 40 unique quality criteria identified. Of the 43 (66%) articles that reported resources used to support criteria selection, 19 (29%) used clinical guidelines, and 10 (15%) used behavior change theory. The most commonly used criteria included the presence of user engagement or behavior change functions (97%, n = 63) and technical features of the app such as customizability (20%, n = 13, while Usability was assessed by 24 studies (36.9%). This study highlights the significant variation in quality criteria employed for the assessment of mobile health apps. Future methods for app evaluation will benefit from approaches that leverage the best evidence regarding the clinical impact and behavior change mechanisms while more directly reflecting patient needs when evaluating the quality of apps.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Study selection flow diagram.
This figure illustrates the process by which articles were selected for inclusion in the study.

References

    1. Hamine S, Gerth-Guyette E, Faulx D, Green BB, Ginsburg AS. Impact of mHealth chronic disease management on treatment adherence and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2015;17:e52. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3951. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Free C, et al. The effectiveness of mobile-health technology-based health behaviour change or disease management interventions for health care consumers: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001362. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fiordelli M, Diviani N, Schulz PJ. Mapping mHealth research: a decade of evolution. J. Med. Internet Res. 2013;15:e95. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2430. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. WHO Global Observatory for eHealth. mHealth: new horizons for health through mobile technologies: second global survey on eHealth. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44607 (2011).
    1. Powell AC, et al. Interrater reliability of mHealth app rating measures: analysis of top depression and smoking cessation apps. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2016;4:e15. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.5176. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources