BackgroundThe use of mobile apps for health and well being promotion has grown exponentially in recent years. Yet, there is currently no app-quality assessment tool beyond “star”-ratings.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop a reliable, multidimensional measure for trialling, classifying, and rating the quality of mobile health apps.MethodsA literature search was conducted to identify articles containing explicit Web or app quality rating criteria published between January 2000 and January 2013. Existing criteria for the assessment of app quality were categorized by an expert panel to develop the new Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) subscales, items, descriptors, and anchors. There were sixty well being apps that were randomly selected using an iTunes search for MARS rating. There were ten that were used to pilot the rating procedure, and the remaining 50 provided data on interrater reliability.ResultsThere were 372 explicit criteria for assessing Web or app quality that were extracted from 25 published papers, conference proceedings, and Internet resources. There were five broad categories of criteria that were identified including four objective quality scales: engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality; and one subjective quality scale; which were refined into the 23-item MARS. The MARS demonstrated excellent internal consistency (alpha = .90) and interrater reliability intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = .79).ConclusionsThe MARS is a simple, objective, and reliable tool for classifying and assessing the quality of mobile health apps. It can also be used to provide a checklist for the design and development of new high quality health apps.

BackgroundCompared to traditional persuasive technology and health games, gamification is posited to offer several advantages for motivating behaviour change for health and well-being, and increasingly used. Yet little is known about its effectiveness.AimsWe aimed to assess the amount and quality of empirical support for the advantages and effectiveness of gamification applied to health and well-being.MethodsWe identified seven potential advantages of gamification from existing research and conducted a systematic literature review of empirical studies on gamification for health and well-being, assessing quality of evidence, effect type, and application domain.ResultsWe identified 19 papers that report empirical evidence on the effect of gamification on health and well-being. 59% reported positive, 41% mixed effects, with mostly moderate or lower quality of evidence provided. Results were clear for health-related behaviours, but mixed for cognitive outcomes.ConclusionsThe current state of evidence supports that gamification can have a positive impact in health and wellbeing, particularly for health behaviours. However several studies report mixed or neutral effect. Findings need to be interpreted with caution due to the relatively small number of studies and methodological limitations of many studies (e.g., a lack of comparison of gamified interventions to non-gamified versions of the intervention).

BackgroundThe Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) provides a reliable method to assess the quality of mobile health (mHealth) apps. However, training and expertise in mHealth and the relevant health field is required to administer it.ObjectiveThis study describes the development and reliability testing of an end-user version of the MARS (uMARS).MethodsThe MARS was simplified and piloted with 13 young people to create the uMARS. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the uMARS was then examined in a second sample of 164 young people participating in a randomized controlled trial of a mHealth app. App ratings were collected using the uMARS at 1-, 3,- and 6-month follow up.ResultsThe uMARS had excellent internal consistency (alpha = .90), with high individual alphas for all subscales. The total score and subscales had good test-retest reliability over both 1-2 months and 3 months.ConclusionsThe uMARS is a simple tool that can be reliably used by end-users to assess the quality of mHealth apps.

BackgroundThere is growing evidence for the positive impact of mindfulness on wellbeing. Mindfulness-based mobile apps may have potential as an alternative delivery medium for training. While there are hundreds of such apps, there is little information on their quality.ObjectiveThis study aimed to conduct a systematic review of mindfulness-based iPhone mobile apps and to evaluate their quality using a recently-developed expert rating scale, the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). It also aimed to describe features of selected high-quality mindfulness apps.MethodsA search for “mindfulness” was conducted in iTunes and Google Apps Marketplace. Apps that provided mindfulness training and education were included. Those containing only reminders, timers or guided meditation tracks were excluded. An expert rater reviewed and rated app quality using the MARS engagement, functionality, visual aesthetics, information quality and subjective quality subscales. A second rater provided MARS ratings on 30% of the apps for inter-rater reliability purposes.ResultsThe “mindfulness” search identified 700 apps. However, 94 were duplicates, 6 were not accessible and 40 were not in English. Of the remaining 560, 23 apps met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. The median MARS score was 3.2 (out of 5.0), which exceeded the minimum acceptable score (3.0). The Headspace app had the highest average score (4.0), followed by Smiling Mind (3.7), iMindfulness (3.5) and Mindfulness Daily (3.5). There was a high level of inter-rater reliability between the two MARS raters.ConclusionsThough many apps claim to be mindfulness-related, most were guided meditation apps, timers, or reminders. Very few had high ratings on the MARS subscales of visual aesthetics, engagement, functionality or information quality. Little evidence is available on the efficacy of the apps in developing mindfulness.

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.

No abstract

BackgroundA growing body of literature affirms the usefulness of mobile technologies, including mobile applications (apps), in the primary prevention field. The quality of health apps, which today number in the thousands, is a crucial parameter, as it may affect health-related decision-making and outcomes among app end-users. The mobile application rating scale (MARS) has recently been developed to evaluate the quality of such apps, and has shown good psychometric properties. Since there is no standardised tool for assessing the apps available in Italian app stores, the present study developed and validated an Italian version of MARS in apps targeting primary prevention.MethodsThe original 23-item version of the MARS assesses mobile app quality in four objective quality dimensions (engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information) and one subjective dimension. Validation of this tool involved several steps; the universalist approach to achieving equivalence was adopted. Following two backward translations, a reconciled Italian version of MARS was produced and compared with the original scale. On the basis of sample size estimation, 48 apps from three major app stores were downloaded; the first 5 were used for piloting, while the remaining 43 were used in the main study in order to assess the psychometric properties of the scale. The apps were assessed by two raters, each working independently. The psychometric properties of the final version of the scale was assessed including the inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, convergent, divergent and concurrent validities.ResultsThe intralingual equivalence of the Italian version of the MARS was confirmed by the authors of the original scale. A total of 43 apps targeting primary prevention were tested. The MARS displayed acceptable psychometric properties. The MARS total score showed an excellent level of both inter-rater agreement (intra-class correlation coefficient of .96) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s α of .90 and .91 for the two raters, respectively). Other types of validity, including convergent, divergent, discriminative, known-groups and scalability, were also established.ConclusionsThe Italian version of MARS is a valid and reliable tool for assessing the health-related primary prevention apps available in Italian app stores.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0323-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract