Background The continuous development of mobile apps has led to many health care professionals using them in clinical settings; however, little research is available to guide occupational therapists (OTs) in choosing quality apps for use in their respective clinical settings. Objective The purpose of this study was to use the user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) to evaluate the quality of the most frequently noted mobile health (mHealth) apps used by OTs and to demonstrate the utility of the uMARS to assess the quality of mHealth apps. Methods A previous study surveying OTs’ use of apps in therapy compiled a list of apps frequently noted. A total of 25 of these apps were evaluated individually by 2 trained researchers using the uMARS, a simple, multidimensional analysis tool that can be reliably used to evaluate the quality of mHealth apps. Results The top 10 apps had a total quality score of 4.3, or higher, out of 5 based on the mean scores of engagement, functionality, and aesthetics. Apps scored highest in functionality and lowest in engagement. Apps noted most frequently were not always high-quality apps; apps noted least frequently were not always low-quality apps. Conclusions Determining the effectiveness of using apps in clinical settings must be built upon a foundation of the implementation of high-quality apps. Mobile apps should not be incorporated into clinical settings solely based on frequency of use. The uMARS should be considered as a useful tool for OTs, and other professionals, to determine app quality.

BACKGROUND The continuous development of mobile applications, or “apps”, has led to many healthcare professionals using them in clinical settings; however, little research is available to guide occupational therapists (OTs) in choosing quality apps for use in their respective clinical settings. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of the most frequently noted mobile apps used by OTs. METHODS A previous study surveying OTs’ use of apps in therapy compiled a list of apps frequently noted. Twenty-five of these apps were evaluated individually by two trained researchers using the uMARS, a simple, multidimensional analysis tool that can be easily used to evaluate the quality of apps. RESULTS The top 10 apps had a total quality score of 4.3, or higher, out of 5 based on the mean scores of engagement, functionality, and aesthetics. Apps scored highest in functionality and lowest in engagement. Apps noted most frequently were not always high-quality apps; apps noted least frequently were not always low-quality apps. CONCLUSIONS Determining the effectiveness of using apps in clinical settings must be built upon a foundation of the implementation of high-quality apps. Mobile apps should not be incorporated into clinical settings solely based on frequency of use. The uMARS should be considered as a useful tool for OTs, and other professionals, to determine app quality.