Openly accessible

Scoping review: Development and assessment of evaluation frameworks of mobile health apps for recommendations to consumers

Hensher, Martin, Cooper, Paul, Dona, SWA, Angeles, Mary Rose, Nguyen, Huong, Winter, Natalie, Chatterton, Mary Lou and Peeters, Anna 2021, Scoping review: Development and assessment of evaluation frameworks of mobile health apps for recommendations to consumers, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1318-1329, doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocab041.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Scoping review: Development and assessment of evaluation frameworks of mobile health apps for recommendations to consumers
Author(s) Hensher, MartinORCID iD for Hensher, Martin orcid.org/0000-0001-6444-6827
Cooper, Paul
Dona, SWAORCID iD for Dona, SWA orcid.org/0000-0002-1847-6862
Angeles, Mary RoseORCID iD for Angeles, Mary Rose orcid.org/0000-0003-4902-9448
Nguyen, HuongORCID iD for Nguyen, Huong orcid.org/0000-0003-4340-9132
Winter, Natalie
Chatterton, Mary Lou
Peeters, Anna
Journal name Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Volume number 28
Issue number 6
Start page 1318
End page 1329
Total pages 12
Publisher Oxford University Press
Place of publication Oxford, Eng.
Publication date 2021-06
ISSN 1067-5027
1527-974X
Keyword(s) ACCEPTABILITY
assessment criteria
CARE
CHALLENGES
Computer Science
Computer Science, Information Systems
Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications
evaluation framework
FEATURES
health apps
Health Care Sciences & Services
Information Science & Library Science
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
MANAGEMENT
MEDICAL APPLICATIONS
Medical Informatics
QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Science & Technology
scoring and scaling
SMARTPHONE APPS
Technology
TOOL
USABILITY
Summary Abstract Objective The study sought to review the different assessment items that have been used within existing health app evaluation frameworks aimed at individual, clinician, or organizational users, and to analyze the scoring and evaluation methods used in these frameworks. Materials and Methods We searched multiple bibliographic databases and conducted backward searches of reference lists, using search terms that were synonyms of “health apps,” “evaluation,” and “frameworks.” The review covered publications from 2011 to April 2020. Studies on health app evaluation frameworks and studies that elaborated on the scaling and scoring mechanisms applied in such frameworks were included. Results Ten common domains were identified across general health app evaluation frameworks. A list of 430 assessment criteria was compiled across 97 identified studies. The most frequently used scaling mechanism was a 5-point Likert scale. Most studies have adopted summary statistics to generate the total scoring of each app, and the most popular approach taken was the calculation of mean or average scores. Other frameworks did not use any scaling or scoring mechanism and adopted criteria-based, pictorial, or descriptive approaches, or “threshold” filter. Discussion There is wide variance in the approaches to evaluating health apps within published frameworks, and this variance leads to ongoing uncertainty in how to evaluate health apps. Conclusions A new evaluation framework is needed that can integrate the full range of evaluative criteria within one structure, and provide summative guidance on health app rating, to support individual app users, clinicians, and health organizations in choosing or recommending the best health app.
Language eng
DOI 10.1093/jamia/ocab041
Field of Research 08 Information and Computing Sciences
09 Engineering
11 Medical and Health Sciences
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Free to Read? Yes
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30149729

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: Faculty of Health
Population Health
Open Access Collection
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 16 Abstract Views, 0 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Mon, 05 Apr 2021, 20:20:08 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.