Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33741674›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Evaluating evaluation frameworks: a scoping review of frameworks for assessing health apps.

Sarah Lagan, Lev Sandler, John Torous

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Evaluation of temporomandibular disorder self-management apps in Australia: a systematic review to inform clinical use.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Quality Assessment of Digital Health Apps: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Frameworks for assessing digital health technologies: a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Help Is Just a Message Away: Online Counselling Chat Services Bridging Gaps in Youth Mental Health?European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors.

Sarah LaganDivision of DIgital Psychaitry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Lev SandlerDivision of DIgital Psychaitry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
John TorousDivision of DIgital Psychaitry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA jtorous@bidmc.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5362-7937

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDespite an estimated 300 000 mobile health apps on the market, there remains no consensus around helping patients and clinicians select safe and effective apps. In 2018, our team drew on existing evaluation frameworks to identify salient categories and create a new framework endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). We have since created a more expanded and operational framework Mhealth Index and Navigation Database (MIND) that aligns with the APA categories but includes objective and auditable questions (105). We sought to survey the existing space, conducting a review of all mobile health app evaluation frameworks published since 2018, and demonstrate the comprehensiveness of this new model by comparing it to existing and emerging frameworks.

designWe conducted a scoping review of mobile health app evaluation frameworks. DATA SOURCES: References were identified through searches of PubMed, EMBASE and PsychINFO with publication date between January 2018 and October 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Papers were selected for inclusion if they meet the predetermined eligibility criteria-presenting an evaluation framework for mobile health apps with patient, clinician or end user-facing questions. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers screened the literature separately and applied the inclusion criteria. The data extracted from the papers included: author and dates of publication, source affiliation, country of origin, name of framework, study design, description of framework, intended audience/user and framework scoring system. We then compiled a collection of more than 1701 questions across 79 frameworks. We compared and grouped these questions using the MIND framework as a reference. We sought to identify the most common domains of evaluation while assessing the comprehensiveness and flexibility-as well as any potential gaps-of MIND.

resultsNew app evaluation frameworks continue to emerge and expand. Since our 2019 review of the app evaluation framework space, more frameworks include questions around privacy (43) and clinical foundation (57), reflecting an increased focus on issues of app security and evidence base. The majority of mapped frameworks overlapped with at least half of the MIND categories. The results of this search have informed a database (apps.digitalpsych.org) that users can access today.

conclusionAs the number of app evaluation frameworks continues to rise, it is becoming difficult for users to select both an appropriate evaluation tool and to find an appropriate health app. This review provides a comparison of what different app evaluation frameworks are offering, where the field is converging and new priorities for improving clinical guidance.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsTelemedicineDelivery of Health CareHumansPrivacySurveys and Questionnairesinformation managementpsychiatrytelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33741674
PMCPMC7986656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.