ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2017
mHealth Assessment: Conceptualization of a Global Framework.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 12 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
74 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mobile health (m-health) smartphone interventions for adolescents and adults with overweight or obesity.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Digital Health Technologies for Long-term Self-management of Osteoporosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Pooled it
- Characteristics of Mobile Health Platforms for Depression and Anxiety: Content Analysis Through a Systematic Review of the Literature and Systematic Search of Two App Stores.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- COVID-19 Mobile Health Apps: An Overview of Mobile Applications in Indonesia.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Challenges With Developing Secure Mobile Health Applications: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Pooled it
- Feasibility of mHealth interventions for depressive symptoms in Latin America: a systematic review.International review of psychiatry (Abingdon, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Methods and Evaluation Criteria for Apps and Digital Interventions for Diabetes Self-Management: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Mobile Apps for Mental Health Issues: Meta-Review of Meta-Analyses.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Pooled it
- How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Assessment of the Efficacy, Safety, and Effectiveness of Weight Control and Obesity Management Mobile Health Interventions: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Pooled it
- Mobile Health for First Nations Populations: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Pooled it
- The effect of education with WhatsApp application on women's health beliefs, self-efficacy levels, and regular mammography behavior: a randomized controlled experimental trial.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2025Trial
- Outcomes of Mobile Health Use in Sinonasal Surgery: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Evaluation of culturally tailored breast cancer education video in a primarily Hispanic population.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Development and Preliminary Evaluation of iCanPlan: A Mobile Health Application for Intimate Partner Violence Prevention in Thailand.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- "I Hope It Does Not Stop With Me, and That It Continues With Other Patients" - A 360 Degree Qualitative Assessment of mHealth Follow-up in Cameroon.The Journal of surgical research · 2026Article
- Stakeholder preferences on digital health in Germany: a health preference study protocol.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Smoking Cessation Apps and Technology Acceptance Factors: Focusing on the Sense2Quit Application.Addiction & health · 2026Review
- Bridging the gap between community health workers' digital health acceptance and actual usage in Uganda: Exploring key external factors based on technology acceptance model.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe mass availability and use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies offers the potential for these technologies to support or substitute medical advice. However, it is worrisome that most assessment initiatives are still not able to successfully evaluate all aspects of mHealth solutions. As a result, multiple strategies to assess mHealth solutions are being proposed by medical regulatory bodies and similar organizations.
objectiveWe aim to offer a collective description of a universally applicable description of mHealth assessment initiatives, given their current and, as we see it, potential impact. In doing so, we recommend a common foundation for the development or update of assessment initiatives by addressing the multistakeholder issues that mHealth technology adds to the traditional medical environment.
methodsOrganized by the Mobile World Capital Barcelona Foundation, we represent a workgroup consisting of patient associations, developers, and health authority representatives, including medical practitioners, within Europe. Contributions from each group's diverse competencies has allowed us to create an overview of the complex yet similar approaches to mHealth evaluation that are being developed today, including common gaps in concepts and perspectives. In response, we summarize commonalities of existing initiatives and exemplify additional characteristics that we believe will strengthen and unify these efforts.
resultsAs opposed to a universal standard or protocol in evaluating mHealth solutions, assessment frameworks should respect the needs and capacity of each medical system or country. Therefore, we expect that the medical system will specify the content, resources, and workflow of assessment protocols in order to ensure a sustainable plan for mHealth solutions within their respective countries.
conclusionsA common framework for all mHealth initiatives around the world will be useful in order to assess whatever mHealth solution is desirable in different areas, adapting it to the specifics of each context, to bridge the gap between health authorities, patients, and mHealth developers. We aim to foster a more trusting and collaborative environment to safeguard the well-being of patients and citizens while encouraging innovation of technology and policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.