1ISG-013 Smartphone applications for patients diagnosed with genitourinary tumours: analysis of the quality using the mobile application rating scale

Amor, Má; Collado-Borrell, Roberto; Escudero‐Vilaplana, Vicente; Ribed-Sánchez, Almudena; Melgarejo-Ortuño, Alejandra; García-Moreno, FJ; García-Sánchez, Sebastián; Narrillos-Moraza, Álvaro; Ruiz-Briones, Paula; Herranz‐Alonso, Ana; Sanjurjo‐Sáez, María

doi:10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-eahpconf.13

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) construct [ 33 ] was the most commonly used methodology (24/39, 62%). It was used in 38% (15/39) of papers as the sole means of quality evaluation [ 45 - 49 , 52 , 57 , 69 - 71 , 73 - 76 , 78 , 79 ]. MARS was also used in an additional 23% of papers along with other methodologies, such as clinical guidelines [ 46 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 65 , 67 , 68 , 77 , 81 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification and Evaluation of Methodologies to Assess the Quality of Mobile Health Apps in High-, Low-, and Middle-Income Countries: Rapid Review

Woulfe¹,

Fadahunsi²,

Smith³

et al. 2021

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In recent years, there has been rapid growth in the availability and use of mobile health (mHealth) apps around the world. A consensus regarding an accepted standard to assess the quality of such apps has yet to be reached. A factor that exacerbates the challenge of mHealth app quality assessment is variations in the interpretation of quality and its subdimensions. Consequently, it has become increasingly difficult for health care professionals worldwide to distinguish apps of high quality from those of lower quality. This exposes both patients and health care professionals to unnecessary risks. Despite progress, limited understanding of the contributions of researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) exists on this topic. Furthermore, the applicability of quality assessment methodologies in LMIC settings remains relatively unexplored. Objective This rapid review aims to identify current methodologies in the literature to assess the quality of mHealth apps, understand what aspects of quality these methodologies address, determine what input has been made by authors from LMICs, and examine the applicability of such methodologies in LMICs. Methods This review was registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). A search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed for papers related to mHealth app quality assessment methodologies, which were published in English between 2005 and 2020. By taking a rapid review approach, a thematic and descriptive analysis of the papers was performed. Results Electronic database searches identified 841 papers. After the screening process, 52 papers remained for inclusion. Of the 52 papers, 5 (10%) proposed novel methodologies that could be used to evaluate mHealth apps of diverse medical areas of interest, 8 (15%) proposed methodologies that could be used to assess apps concerned with a specific medical focus, and 39 (75%) used methodologies developed by other published authors to evaluate the quality of various groups of mHealth apps. The authors in 6% (3/52) of papers were solely affiliated to institutes in LMICs. A further 15% (8/52) of papers had at least one coauthor affiliated to an institute in an LMIC. Conclusions Quality assessment of mHealth apps is complex in nature and at times subjective. Despite growing research on this topic, to date, an all-encompassing appropriate means for evaluating the quality of mHealth apps does not exist. There has been engagement with authors affiliated to institutes across LMICs; however, limited consideration of current generic methodologies for application in LMIC settings has been identified. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42020205149; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=205149

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification and Evaluation of Methodologies to Assess the Quality of Mobile Health Apps in High-, Low-, and Middle-Income Countries: Rapid Review

Woulfe¹,

Fadahunsi²,

Smith³

et al. 2021

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) construct [33] was the most commonly used methodology (24/39, 62%). It was used in 38% (15/39) of papers as the sole means of quality evaluation [45][46][47][48][49]52,57,[69][70][71][73][74][75][76]78,79]. MARS was also used in an additional 23% of papers along with other methodologies, such as clinical guidelines [46,55,56,58,65,67,68,77,81].…”

Section: Categorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification and Evaluation of Methodologies to Assess the Quality of Mobile Health Apps in High-, Low-, and Middle-Income Countries: Rapid Review (Preprint)

Woulfe¹,

Fadahunsi²,

Smith³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND There has been a rapid growth in the availability and use of mobile health (mHealth) apps around the world in recent years. However, consensus regarding an accepted standard to assess the quality of such apps does not exist. Differing interpretations of quality add to this problem. Consequently, it has become increasingly difficult for healthcare professionals to distinguish apps of high quality from those of lower quality. This exposes both patients and healthcare professionals to unnecessary risk. Despite progress, limited understanding of contributions by those in low- and middle- income countries (LMIC) on this topic exists. As such, the applicability of quality assessment methodologies in LMIC settings remains unexplored. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this rapid review are to; 1) Identify current methodologies within the literature to assess the quality of mHealth apps. 2) Understand what aspects of quality these methodologies address. 3) Determine what input has been made by authors from LMICs. 4) Examine the applicability of such methodologies in low- and middle- income settings. METHODS The review is registered with Prospero (CRD42020205149). A search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus was performed for papers relating to mHealth app quality assessment methodologies, published in English between 2005 and the 28th of December, 2020. A thematic and descriptive analysis of methodologies and papers was performed. RESULTS Electronic database searches identified 841 papers. After the screening process, 53 papers remained for inclusion; 6 proposed novel methodologies which could be used to evaluate mHealth apps of diverse medical areas of interest; 8 proposed methodologies which could be used to assess apps concerned with a specific medical focus; 39 used methodologies developed by other published authors to evaluate the quality of various groups of mHealth apps. Authors of 3 papers were solely affiliated to institutes in LMICs. A further 8 papers had at least one co-author affiliated to an institute in a LMIC. CONCLUSIONS Quality assessment of mHealth apps is complex in nature and at times, subjective. Despite growing research on this topic, to date an all-encompassing, appropriate means for evaluating the quality of mHealth apps does not exist. There has been engagement with authors affiliated to institutes in LMICs, however limited consideration of current generic methodologies for application in a LMIC settings have been identified.

show abstract

Web-Based Patient Self-Reported Outcome After Radiotherapy in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: Survey on Acceptance of Digital Tools (Preprint)

Vogel¹,

Kessel²,

Combs³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND eHealth and mHealth are an evolving trend in the medical field. The willingness to use digital tools is high, and the need is growing. OBJECTIVE Young adults (18-40 years) confronted with a cancer diagnosis present unique needs and require special cancer care. They often have a strong affinity and are familiar with modern technology. On that account, we implemented a web-based symptom and quality of life (QoL) assessment to address patients’ attitudes and willingness to use mHealth tools. The FABIUS trial also aims to evaluate sociodemographic parameters that could influence patients' opinions. METHODS A total of 380 young patients aged from 18-40 years treated with radiotherapy between 2002 and 2017 were included in the trial. We assessed QoL via the EORTC C30 questionnaire and added general questions about mHealth technology. The added questions inquired patients’ opinions regarding general aspects, including technical advances in medicine, mobile, and app assistance during cancer treatment, data transfer, and app-specific features. The survey was conducted for 12 months. Participation was voluntary and pseudonymized; prior written consent was obtained. RESULTS We achieved a participation rate of 57.6% (219/380) and a completion rate of 50.2% (110/219). Median age was 33 years (range: 18-40). Of all participants, 89.1% (98/110) considered new technologies in medicine as positive; 10.9% (12/110) answered with neutral. Nearly all patients (106/110, 96.4%) stated that they would send further data via a web-based platform. Of all, 96.4% considered the provided pseudonymization of their data as safe. We further asked the patients if they would use a mobile app for symptom and QoL assessment similar to the present web-based system: 74.5% (82/110) answered with yes, 25.5% (28/110) would not use a mobile app in the future. Patients are generally positive regarding using an app rated several possible app functions. The three most requested features were: appointment reminders (89.0%, 73/82), contact overview of all involved clinics and physicians (86.6%, 59/82), and transfer of current lab results (86.6%, 59/82). We tested the willingness to use an app on several sociodemographic parameters, such as age, gender, education, health insurance status, and cancer-related parameters: tumor stage, time since radiation treatment, and treatment intention. None of these parameters did correlate with app use in this group of young adults. CONCLUSIONS eHealth and mHealth tools should be available as an integrated part of a comprehensive cancer care approach. It provides automated, thorough documentation of health parameters during therapy and follow-up for doctors, medical staff, and tumor patients to optimize treatment. With the FABIUS trial, we could show that especially the generation of young adults is the ideal patient population to use eHealth/mHealth tools. They offer further digital support and improves their need for constant QoL during cancer care. CLINICALTRIAL n/a

show abstract

1ISG-013 Smartphone applications for patients diagnosed with genitourinary tumours: analysis of the quality using the mobile application rating scale

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Identification and Evaluation of Methodologies to Assess the Quality of Mobile Health Apps in High-, Low-, and Middle-Income Countries: Rapid Review

Identification and Evaluation of Methodologies to Assess the Quality of Mobile Health Apps in High-, Low-, and Middle-Income Countries: Rapid Review

Identification and Evaluation of Methodologies to Assess the Quality of Mobile Health Apps in High-, Low-, and Middle-Income Countries: Rapid Review (Preprint)

Web-Based Patient Self-Reported Outcome After Radiotherapy in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: Survey on Acceptance of Digital Tools (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About