ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020
The Mobile App Development and Assessment Guide (MAG): Delphi-Based Validity Study.
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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of features and content quality of Arabic mental mHealth apps.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Pooled it
- Prioritization of Quality Principles for Health Apps Using the Kano Model: Survey Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Trial
- Validation and selection of criteria for evaluating apps for managing depression: a Delphi study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Achieving consensus on the key elements of a nurse-led multidisciplinary chronic heart failure service in Thailand: An e-Delphi study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Implementation and Adherence of a Custom Mobile Application for Anonymous Bidirectional Communication Among Nearly 4000 Participants: Insights from the Longitudinal RisCoin Study.Infectious disease reports · 2025Article
- Development, implementation and evaluation of a digital treatment for adolescents with chronic pain: a protocol for a multi-phase study.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Quality assessment of mHealth apps: a scoping review.Frontiers in health services · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of Digital Health Applications: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- A Mobile Application to Help Self-Manage Pain Severity, Anxiety, and Depressive Symptoms in Patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Effects of COVID-19 Social Distancing Measures in Individuals with Chronic Pain Living in Spain in the Late Stages of the Lockdown.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Assessing the Quality of Mobile Health-Related Apps: Interrater Reliability Study of Two Guides.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Article
- Acceptability, Validity, and Engagement With a Mobile App for Frequent, Continuous Multiyear Assessment of Youth Health Behaviors (mNCANDA): Mixed Methods Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Article
- Development, content validation and quality evaluation of a mobile app for oral health surveillance: a modified Delphi approach.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, there has been an exponential growth of mobile health (mHealth)-related apps. This has occurred in a somewhat unsupervised manner. Therefore, having a set of criteria that could be used by all stakeholders to guide the development process and the assessment of the quality of the apps is of most importance.
objectiveThe aim of this paper is to study the validity of the Mobile App Development and Assessment Guide (MAG), a guide recently created to help stakeholders develop and assess mobile health apps.
methodsTo conduct a validation process of the MAG, we used the Delphi method to reach a consensus among participating stakeholders. We identified 158 potential participants: 45 patients as potential end users, 41 health care professionals, and 72 developers. We sent participants an online survey and asked them to rate how important they considered each item in the guide to be on a scale from 0 to 10. Two rounds were enough to reach consensus.
resultsIn the first round, almost one-third (n=42) of those invited participated, and half of those (n=24) also participated in the second round. Most items in the guide were found to be important to a quality mHealth-related app; a total of 48 criteria were established as important. "Privacy," "security," and "usability" were the categories that included most of the important criteria.
conclusionsThe data supports the validity of the MAG. In addition, the findings identified the criteria that stakeholders consider to be most important. The MAG will help advance the field by providing developers, health care professionals, and end users with a valid guide so that they can develop and identify mHealth-related apps that are of quality.
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.