Background In the recent decades, the number of apps promoting health behaviors and health-related strategies and interventions has increased alongside the number of smartphone users. Nevertheless, the validity process for measuring and reporting app quality remains unsatisfactory for health professionals and end users and represents a public health concern. The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) is a tool validated and widely used in the scientific literature to evaluate and compare mHealth app functionalities. However, MARS is not adapted to the French culture nor to the language. Objective This study aims to translate, adapt, and validate the equivalent French version of MARS (ie, MARS-F). Methods The original MARS was first translated to French by two independent bilingual scientists, and their common version was blind back-translated twice by two native English speakers, culminating in a final well-established MARS-F. Its comprehensibility was then evaluated by 6 individuals (3 researchers and 3 nonacademics), and the final MARS-F version was created. Two bilingual raters independently completed the evaluation of 63 apps using MARS and MARS-F. Interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. In addition, internal consistency and validity of both scales were assessed. Mokken scale analysis was used to investigate the scalability of both MARS and MARS-F. Results MARS-F had a good alignment with the original MARS, with properties comparable between the two scales. The correlation coefficients (r) between the corresponding dimensions of MARS and MARS-F ranged from 0.97 to 0.99. The internal consistencies of the MARS-F dimensions engagement (ω=0.79), functionality (ω=0.79), esthetics (ω=0.78), and information quality (ω=0.61) were acceptable and that for the overall MARS score (ω=0.86) was good. Mokken scale analysis revealed a strong scalability for MARS (Loevinger H=0.37) and a good scalability for MARS-F (H=0.35). Conclusions MARS-F is a valid tool, and it would serve as a crucial aid for researchers, health care professionals, public health authorities, and interested third parties, to assess the quality of mHealth apps in French-speaking countries.

Background The global burden of disease attributes 20% of deaths to poor nutrition. Although hundreds of nutrition-related mobile apps have been created, and these have been downloaded by millions of users, the effectiveness of these technologies on the adoption of healthy eating has had mixed Objective The aim of this study was to review which nutrition-related mobile apps are currently available on the French market and assess their quality. Methods We screened apps on the Google Play Store and the French Apple App Store, from March 10 to 17, 2021, to identify those related to nutritional health. A shortlist of 15 apps was identified, and each was assessed using the French version of the Mobile App Rating Scale: 8 dietitians and nutritionists assessed 7 apps, and the remaining apps were randomly allocated to ensure 4 assessments per app. Intraclass correlation was used to evaluate interrater agreement. Means and standard deviations of scores for each section and each item were calculated. Results The top scores for overall quality were obtained by Yazio - Régime et Calories (mean 3.84, SD 0.32), FeelEat (mean 3.71, SD 0.47), and Bonne App (mean 3.65, SD 0.09). Engagement scores ranged from a mean of 1.95 (SD 0.5) for iEatBetter: Journal alimentaire to a mean of 3.85 (SD 0.44) for FeelEat. Functionality scores ranged from a mean of 2.25 (SD 0.54) for Naor to a mean of 4.25 (SD 0.46) for Yazio. Aesthetics scores ranged from a mean of 2.17 (SD 0.34) for Naor to a mean of 3.88 (SD 0.47) for Yazio. Information scores ranged from a mean of 2.38 (SD 0.60) for iEatBetter to a mean of 3.73 (SD 0.29) for Yazio. Subjective quality scores ranged from a mean of 1.13 (SD 0.25) for iEatBetter to a mean of 2.28 (SD 0.88) for Compteur de calories FatSecret. Specificity scores ranged from a mean of 1.38 (SD 0.64) for iEatBetter to a mean of 3.50 (SD 0.91) for FeelEat. The app-specific score was always lower than the subjective quality score, which was always lower than the quality score, which was lower than the rating from the iOS or Android app stores. Conclusions Although prevention and information messages in apps regarding nutritional habits are not scientifically verified before marketing, we found that app quality was good. Subjective quality and specificity were associated with lower ratings. Further investigations are needed to assess whether information from these apps is consistent with recommendations and to determine the long-term impacts of these apps on users.

Neglecting oral hygiene in adolescents negatively affects dental caries and periodontal diseases, in addition to social and emotional well-being. Thus, the TikTok platform (ByteDance, Beijing, China)as a social media could be a powerful channel to provide health-related information and educational content. This study aims to assess the quality of the TikTok videos corresponding to #oralhealtheducation. Sixty-nine videos were identified. Three oral health professionals (OHP), three health education professionals (HEP), and ten of TikTok’s target audience watched and evaluated the videos from a qualitative questionnaire. OHP detected false or incorrect information in 11.6% (8/69) of the videos. At least two HEPs reported being unable to detect this type of content or whether the video met dental ethics standards in both the videos. Disagreement was observed among the professionals themselves. The evaluation indicated that TikTok’s target audience was satisfied with the products viewed with an average score of >2.5, unlike the professionals, whose average score was <2.5 on a scale of 0 to 5. Users are advised to think critically and to consider the content of TikTok oral health videos with caution. The involvement of health professionals in the writing and validation of the videos could be an added value to positively respond to the needs of the adolescents.

The development of gene expression signatures since the early 2000′s has offered standardized assays to evaluate the prognosis of early breast cancer. Five signatures are currently commercially available and recommended by several international guidelines to individualize adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in hormone receptors-positive/HER2-negative early breast cancer. However, many questions remain unanswered about their predictive ability, reproducibility and external validity in specific populations. They also represent a new hope to tailor (neo)adjuvant systemic treatment, adjuvant radiation therapy, hormone therapy duration and to identify a subset of patients who might benefit from CDK4/6 inhibitor adjuvant treatment. This review will highlight these particular issues, address the remaining questions and discuss the ongoing and future trials.

BACKGROUND In the recent decades, the number of apps promoting health behaviors and health-related strategies and interventions has increased alongside the number of smartphone users. Nevertheless, the validity process for measuring and reporting app quality remains unsatisfactory for health professionals and end users and represents a public health concern. The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) is a tool validated and widely used in the scientific literature to evaluate and compare mHealth app functionalities. However, MARS is not adapted to the French culture nor to the language. OBJECTIVE This study aims to translate, adapt, and validate the equivalent French version of MARS (ie, MARS-F). METHODS The original MARS was first translated to French by two independent bilingual scientists, and their common version was blind back-translated twice by two native English speakers, culminating in a final well-established MARS-F. Its comprehensibility was then evaluated by 6 individuals (3 researchers and 3 nonacademics), and the final MARS-F version was created. Two bilingual raters independently completed the evaluation of 63 apps using MARS and MARS-F. Interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. In addition, internal consistency and validity of both scales were assessed. Mokken scale analysis was used to investigate the scalability of both MARS and MARS-F. RESULTS MARS-F had a good alignment with the original MARS, with properties comparable between the two scales. The correlation coefficients (<i>r</i>) between the corresponding dimensions of MARS and MARS-F ranged from 0.97 to 0.99. The internal consistencies of the MARS-F dimensions <i>engagement</i> (<i>ω</i>=0.79), <i>functionality</i> (<i>ω</i>=0.79), <i>esthetics</i> (<i>ω</i>=0.78), and <i>information quality</i> (<i>ω</i>=0.61) were acceptable and that for the overall MARS score (<i>ω</i>=0.86) was good. Mokken scale analysis revealed a strong scalability for MARS (Loevinger H=0.37) and a good scalability for MARS-F (H=0.35). CONCLUSIONS MARS-F is a valid tool, and it would serve as a crucial aid for researchers, health care professionals, public health authorities, and interested third parties, to assess the quality of mHealth apps in French-speaking countries.