Background Chronic rheumatic diseases need long-term treatment and professional supervision. Mobile apps promise to improve the lives of patients and physicians. In routine practice, however, rheumatology apps are largely unknown and little is known about their quality and safety. Objective The aim of this study was to provide an overview of mobile rheumatology apps currently available in German app stores, evaluate app quality using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), and compile brief, ready-to-use descriptions for patients and rheumatologists. Methods The German App Store and Google Play store were systematically searched to identify German rheumatology mobile apps for patient and physician use. MARS was used to independently assess app quality by 8 physicians, 4 using Android and 4 using iOS smartphones. Apps were randomly assigned so that 4 apps were rated by all raters and the remaining apps were rated by two Android and two iOS users. Furthermore, brief app descriptions including app developers, app categories, and features were compiled to inform potential users and developers. Results In total, 128 and 63 apps were identified in the German Google Play and App Store, respectively. After removing duplicates and only including apps that were available in both stores, 28 apps remained. Sixteen apps met the inclusion criteria, which were (1) German language, (2) availability in both app stores, (3) targeting patients or physicians as users, and (4) clearly including rheumatology or rheumatic diseases as subject matter. Exclusion criteria were (1) congress apps and (2) company apps with advertisements. Nine apps addressed patients and 7 apps addressed physicians. No clinical studies to support the effectiveness and safety of apps could be found. Pharmaceutical companies were the main developers of two apps. Rheuma Auszeit was the only app mainly developed by a patient organization. This app had the highest overall MARS score (4.19/5). Three out of 9 patient apps featured validated questionnaires. The median overall MARS score was 3.85/5, ranging from 2.81/5 to 4.19/5. One patient-targeted and one physician-targeted app had MARS scores >4/5. No significant rater gender or platform (iOS/Android) differences could be observed. The overall correlation between app store ratings and MARS scores was low and inconsistent between platforms. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study that systematically identified and evaluated mobile apps in rheumatology for patients and physicians available in German app stores. We found a lack of supporting clinical studies, use of validated questionnaires, and involvement of academic developers. Overall app quality was heterogeneous. To create high-quality apps, closer cooperation led by patients and physicians is vital.

Background The number of mobile health apps (MHAs), which are developed to promote healthy behaviors, prevent disease onset, manage and cure diseases, or assist with rehabilitation measures, has exploded. App store star ratings and descriptions usually provide insufficient or even false information about app quality, although they are popular among end users. A rigorous systematic approach to establish and evaluate the quality of MHAs is urgently needed. The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) is an assessment tool that facilitates the objective and systematic evaluation of the quality of MHAs. However, a German MARS is currently not available. Objective The aim of this study was to translate and validate a German version of the MARS (MARS-G). Methods The original 19-item MARS was forward and backward translated twice, and the MARS-G was created. App description items were extended, and 104 MHAs were rated twice by eight independent bilingual researchers, using the MARS-G and MARS. The internal consistency, validity, and reliability of both scales were assessed. Mokken scale analysis was used to investigate the scalability of the overall scores. Results The retranslated scale showed excellent alignment with the original MARS. Additionally, the properties of the MARS-G were comparable to those of the original MARS. The internal consistency was good for all subscales (ie, omega ranged from 0.72 to 0.91). The correlation coefficients (r) between the dimensions of the MARS-G and MARS ranged from 0.93 to 0.98. The scalability of the MARS (H=0.50) and MARS-G (H=0.48) were good. Conclusions The MARS-G is a reliable and valid tool for experts and stakeholders to assess the quality of health apps in German-speaking populations. The overall score is a reliable quality indicator. However, further studies are needed to assess the factorial structure of the MARS and MARS-G.

Background: Mobile health applications (apps) are considered to complement traditional psychological treatments for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). However, the use for clinical practice and quality of available apps is unknown. Objective: To assess the general characteristics, therapeutic background, content, and quality of apps for PTSD and to examine their concordance with established PTSD treatment and self-help methods. Method: A web crawler systematically searched for apps targeting PTSD in the British Google Play and Apple iTunes stores. Two independent researchers rated the apps using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). The content of high-quality apps was checked for concordance with psychological treatment and self-help methods extracted from current literature on PTSD treatment. Results: Out of 555 identified apps, 69 met the inclusion criteria. The overall app quality based on the MARS was medium (M = 3.36, SD = 0.65). Most apps (50.7%) were based on cognitive behavioural therapy and offered a wide range of content, including established psychological PTSD treatment methods such as processing of trauma-related emotions and beliefs, relaxation exercises, and psychoeducation. Notably, data protection and privacy standards were poor in most apps and only one app (1.4%) was scientifically evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. Conclusions: High-quality apps based on established psychological treatment techniques for PTSD are available in commercial app stores. However, users are confronted with great difficulties in identifying useful high-quality apps and most apps lack an evidence-base. Commercial distribution channels do not exploit the potential of apps to complement the psychological treatment of PTSD.

Background Mindfulness-based interventions show positive effects on physical and mental health. For a better integration of mindfulness techniques in daily life, the use of apps may be promising. However, only a few studies have examined the quality of mindfulness apps using a validated standardized instrument. This review aims to evaluate the content, quality, and privacy features of mindfulness-focused apps from European commercial app stores. Methods An automated search engine (webcrawler) was used to identify mindfulness-focused apps in the European Apple App- and Google Play store. Content, quality, and privacy features were evaluated by two independent reviewers using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). The MARS assesses the subscales engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality. Results Out of 605 identified apps, 192 met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality was moderate (M = 3.66, SD = 0.48). Seven apps were tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Most of the apps showed a lack of data security and no privacy policy. The five apps with the highest ratings are from a credible source, include a privacy policy, and are also based on standardized mindfulness and behavior change techniques. Conclusions The plethora of often low-quality apps in commercial app stores makes it difficult for users to identify a suitable app. Above that, the lack of scientific verification of effectiveness and shortcomings in privacy protection and security poses potential risks. So far, the potential of mindfulness-focused apps is not exploited in commercial app stores.

Background Through the increasingly aging population, the health care system is confronted with various challenges such as expanding health care costs. To manage these challenges, mobile apps may represent a cost-effective and low-threshold approach to support older adults. Objective This systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality, characteristics, as well as privacy and security measures of mobile apps for older adults in the European commercial app stores. Methods In the European Google Play and App Store, a web crawler systematically searched for mobile apps for older adults. The identified mobile apps were evaluated by two independent reviewers using the German version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale. A correlation between the user star rating and overall rating was calculated. An exploratory regression analysis was conducted to determine whether the obligation to pay fees predicted overall quality. Results In total, 83 of 1217 identified mobile apps were included in the analysis. Generally, the mobile apps for older adults were of moderate quality (mean 3.22 [SD 0.68]). Four mobile apps (5%) were evidence-based; 49% (41/83) had no security measures. The user star rating correlated significantly positively with the overall rating (r=.30, P=.01). Obligation to pay fees could not predict overall quality. Conclusions There is an extensive quality range within mobile apps for older adults, indicating deficits in terms of information quality, data protection, and security precautions, as well as a lack of evidence-based approaches. Central databases are needed to identify high-quality mobile apps.

Background Patients suffering from inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) frequently need long-term medical treatment. Mobile apps promise to complement and improve IBD management, but so far there has been no scientific analysis of their quality. Objective This study evaluated the quality of German mobile apps targeting IBD patients and physicians treating IBD patients using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). Methods The German Apple App Store and Google Play Store were systematically searched to identify German IBD mobile apps for patient and physician use. MARS was used by 6 physicians (3 using Android smartphones and 3 using iPhones) to independently assess app quality. Apps were randomly assigned so that the 4 apps with the most downloads were rated by all raters and the remaining apps were rated by 1 Android and 1 iOS user. Results In total, we identified 1764 apps in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. After removing apps that were not related to IBD (n=1386) or not available in German (n=317), 61 apps remained. After removing duplicates (n=3) and apps for congresses (n=7), journals (n=4), and clinical studies (n=6), as well as excluding apps that were available in only 1 of the 2 app stores (n=20) and apps that could only be used with an additional device (n=7), we included a total of 14 apps. The app “CED Dokumentation und Tipps” had the highest overall median MARS score at 4.11/5. On the whole, the median MARS scores of the 14 apps ranged between 2.38/5 and 4.11/5. As there was no significant difference between iPhone and Android raters, we used the Wilcoxon comparison test to calculate P values. Conclusions The MARS ratings showed that the quality of German IBD apps varied. We also discovered a discrepancy between app store ratings and MARS ratings, highlighting the difficulty of assessing perceived app quality. Despite promising results from international studies, there is little evidence for the clinical benefits of German IBD apps. Clinical studies and patient inclusion in the app development process are needed to effectively implement mobile apps in routine care.

A large number of mobile health applications claiming to target insomnia are available in commercial app stores. However, limited information on the quality of these mobile health applications exists. The present study aimed to systematically search the European Google Play and Apple App Store for mobile health applications targeting insomnia, and evaluate the quality, content, evidence base and potential therapeutic benefit. Eligible mobile health applications were evaluated by two independent reviewers using the Mobile Application Rating Scale-German, which ranges from 1inadequate to 5excellent. Of 2236 identified mobile health applications, 53 were included in this study. Most mobile health applications (68%) had a moderate overall quality. Concerning the four main subscales of the Mobile Application Rating Scale-German, functionality was rated highest (M = 4.01, SD = 0.52), followed by information quality (M = 3.49, SD = 0.72), aesthetics (M = 3.31, SD = 1.04) and engagement (M = 3.02, SD = 1.03). While scientific evidence was identified for 10 mobile health applications (19%), only one study employed a randomized controlled design. Fifty mobile health applications featured sleep hygiene/ psychoeducation (94%), 27 cognitive therapy (51%), 26 relaxation methods (49%), 24 stimulus control (45%), 16 sleep restriction (30%) and 24 sleep diaries (45%). Mobile health applications may have the potential to improve the care of insomnia. Yet, data on the effectiveness of mobile health applications are scarce, and this study indicates a large variance in the quality of the mobile health applications. Thus, independent information platforms are needed to provide healthcare seekers and providers with reliable information on the quality and content of mobile health applications.

Background Gastrointestinal diseases are associated with substantial cost in health care. In times of the COVID-19 pandemic and further digitalization of gastrointestinal tract health care, mobile health apps could complement routine health care. Many gastrointestinal health care apps are already available in the app stores, but the quality, data protection, and reliability often remain unclear. Objective This systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality characteristics as well as the privacy and security measures of mobile health apps for the management of gastrointestinal diseases. Methods A web crawler systematically searched for mobile health apps with a focus on gastrointestinal diseases. The identified mobile health apps were evaluated using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). Furthermore, app characteristics, data protection, and security measures were collected. Classic user star rating was correlated with overall mobile health app quality. Results The overall quality of the mobile health apps (N=109) was moderate (mean 2.90, SD 0.52; on a scale ranging from 1 to 5). The quality of the subscales ranged from low (mean 1.89, SD 0.66) to good (mean 4.08, SD 0.57). The security of data transfer was ensured only by 11 (10.1%) mobile health apps. None of the mobile health apps had an evidence base. The user star rating did not correlate with the MARS overall score or with the individual subdimensions of the MARS (all P>.05). Conclusions Mobile health apps might have a positive impact on diagnosis, therapy, and patient guidance in gastroenterology in the future. We conclude that, to date, data security and proof of efficacy are not yet given in currently available mobile health apps.