ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020
The Mobile Health App Trustworthiness Checklist: Usability Assessment.
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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Towards Understanding the Usability Attributes of AI-Enabled eHealth Mobile Applications.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Pooled it
- Usability Testing of a Digitized Interventional Prehabilitation Tool for Health Care Professionals and Patients Before Major Surgeries: Formative and Summative Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Fostering Patient-Clinician Communication to Promote Rapid HIV, Hepatitis B Virus, and Hepatitis C Virus Diagnostic Testing: Conceptual Development of a Multilingual App.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Article
- Ethical Principles in Digital Palliative Care for Children: The MyPal Project and Experiences Made in Designing a Trustworthy Approach.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Review
- How Should Oncologists Choose an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome System for Remote Monitoring of Patients With Cancer?Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Analyzing the Essential Attributes of Nationally Issued COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps: Open-Source Intelligence Approach and Content Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Article
- Critical success factors for creating sustainable digital health applications: A systematic review of the German case.Digital healthReview
- Trust, perceived accuracy, and continued use of patient-facing symptom monitoring applications: Cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
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
Abstract
backgroundThe mobile health (mHealth) app trustworthiness (mHAT) checklist was created to identify end users' opinions on the characteristics of trustworthy mHealth apps and to communicate this information to app developers. To ensure that the checklist is suited for all relevant stakeholders, it is necessary to validate its contents.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of the mHAT checklist by modifying its contents according to ratings and suggestions from stakeholders familiar with the process of developing, managing, or curating mHealth apps.
methodsA 44-item online survey was administered to relevant stakeholders. The survey was largely comprised of the mHAT checklist items, which respondents rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5).
resultsIn total, seven professional backgrounds were represented in the survey: administrators (n=6), health professionals (n=7), information technology personnel (n=6), managers (n=2), marketing personnel (n=3), researchers (n=5), and user experience researchers (n=8). Aside from one checklist item-"the app can inform end users about errors in measurements"-the combined positive ratings (ie, completely agree and agree) of the checklist items overwhelmingly exceeded the combined negative ratings (ie, completely disagree and disagree). Meanwhile, two additional items were included in the checklist: (1) business or funding model of the app and (2) details on app uninstallation statistics.
conclusionsOur results indicate that the mHAT checklist is a valuable resource for a broad range of stakeholders to develop trustworthy mHealth apps. Future studies should examine if the checklist works best for certain mHealth apps or in specific settings.
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.