ArticleJournal of medical systems2015
Experiences and Results of Applying Tools for Assessing the Quality of a mHealth App Named Heartkeeper.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Developing a Comprehensive List of Criteria to Evaluate the Characteristics and Quality of eHealth Smartphone Apps: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic Review about QoS and QoE in Telemedicine and eHealth Services and Applications.Journal of medical systems · 2018Pooled it
- Criteria for assessing the quality of mHealth apps: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Pooled it
- Beyond accessibility: co-designing mHealth to bridge the physical activity gap for people with disabilities.mHealth · 2026Article
- Article
- Identification and Evaluation of Methodologies to Assess the Quality of Mobile Health Apps in High-, Low-, and Middle-Income Countries: Rapid Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Review
- Scoping review: Development and assessment of evaluation frameworks of mobile health apps for recommendations to consumers.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Methods and Measures Used to Evaluate Patient-Operated Mobile Health Interventions: Scoping Literature Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Constructing an assessment framework for the quality of asthma smartphone applications.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Addressing Depression Comorbid With Diabetes or Hypertension in Resource-Poor Settings: A Qualitative Study About User Perception of a Nurse-Supported Smartphone App in Peru.JMIR mental health · 2019Article
- Quality Principles of App Description Texts and Their Significance in Deciding to Use Health Apps as Assessed by Medical Students: Survey Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- A Mobile App-Based Intervention for Depression: End-User and Expert Usability Testing Study.JMIR mental health · 2018Article
- Mobile Phone Apps to Support Heart Failure Self-Care Management: Integrative Review.JMIR cardio · 2018Review
- Methods for Evaluating the Content, Usability, and Efficacy of Commercial Mobile Health Apps.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2017Article
- Review and Analysis of Existing Mobile Phone Apps to Support Heart Failure Symptom Monitoring and Self-Care Management Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS).JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2016Article
- An Analysis of WhatsApp Usage for Communication Between Consulting and Emergency Physicians.Journal of medical systems · 2016Observational
- HIPAA Compliance with Mobile Devices Among ACGME Programs.Journal of medical systems · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, many incomplete mobile apps can be found in the commercial stores, apps with bugs or low quality that needs to be seriously improved. The aim of this paper is to use two different tools for assessing the quality of a mHealth app for the self-management of heart diseases by the own patients named Heartkeeper. The first tool measures the compliance with the Android guidelines given by Google and the second measures the users' Quality of Experience (QoE). The results obtained indicated that Heartkeeper follows in many cases the Android guidelines, especially in the structure, and offers a satisfactory QoE for its users, with special mention to aspects such as the learning curve, the availability and the appearance. As a result, Heartkeeper has proved to be a satisfactory app from the point of view of Google and the users. The conclusions obtained are that the type of tools that measure the quality of an app can be very useful for developers in order to find aspects that need improvements before releasing their apps. By doing this, the number of low-quality applications released will decrease dramatically, so these techniques are strongly recommended for all the app developers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26345452What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.