Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32130183›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

The Arabic Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale: Development and Validation Study.

Marco Bardus, Nathalie Awada, Lilian A Ghandour, Elie-Jacques Fares, Tarek Gherbal, Tasnim Al-Zanati, Stoyan R Stoyanov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Spanish adaptation and validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS).Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marco BardusDepartment of Health Promotion and Community Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-0707-7196
Nathalie AwadaDepartment of Health Promotion and Community Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-9742-3020
Lilian A GhandourDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0001-6649-0653
Elie-Jacques FaresDepartment of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0001-6506-9867
Tarek GherbalUniversity Sports, Office of Student Affairs, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0001-6815-9104
Tasnim Al-ZanatiInternational Medical Corps, Amman, Jordan.ORCID 0000-0002-4224-9555
Stoyan R StoyanovSchool of Design, Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3399-3347

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith thousands of health apps in app stores globally, it is crucial to systemically and thoroughly evaluate the quality of these apps due to their potential influence on health decisions and outcomes. The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) is the only currently available tool that provides a comprehensive, multidimensional evaluation of app quality, which has been used to compare medical apps from American and European app stores in various areas, available in English, Italian, Spanish, and German. However, this tool is not available in Arabic.

objectiveThis study aimed to translate and adapt MARS to Arabic and validate the tool with a sample of health apps aimed at managing or preventing obesity and associated disorders.

methodsWe followed a well-established and defined "universalist" process of cross-cultural adaptation using a mixed methods approach. Early translations of the tool, accompanied by confirmation of the contents by two rounds of separate discussions, were included and culminated in a final version, which was then back-translated into English. Two trained researchers piloted the MARS in Arabic (MARS-Ar) with a sample of 10 weight management apps obtained from Google Play and the App Store. Interrater reliability was established using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). After reliability was ascertained, the two researchers independently evaluated a set of additional 56 apps.

resultsMARS-Ar was highly aligned with the original English version. The ICCs for MARS-Ar (0.836, 95% CI 0.817-0.853) and MARS English (0.838, 95% CI 0.819-0.855) were good. The MARS-Ar subscales were highly correlated with the original counterparts (P<.001). The lowest correlation was observed in the area of usability (r=0.685), followed by aesthetics (r=0.827), information quality (r=0.854), engagement (r=0.894), and total app quality (r=0.897). Subjective quality was also highly correlated (r=0.820).

conclusionsMARS-Ar is a valid instrument to assess app quality among trained Arabic-speaking users of health and fitness apps. Researchers and public health professionals in the Arab world can use the overall MARS score and its subscales to reliably evaluate the quality of weight management apps. Further research is necessary to test the MARS-Ar on apps addressing various health issues, such as attention or anxiety prevention, or sexual and reproductive health.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsAnxietyExerciseHumansItalyReproducibility of Resultsapp evaluationapp qualityArab worldeHealthmHealthmobile appmobile app rating scalevalidation studies as topic

Identifiers

PMID32130183
PMCPMC7078658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.