ArticleBMJ open2021
Evaluating evaluation frameworks: a scoping review of frameworks for assessing health apps.
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.
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
58 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Landscape of Mobile Apps for Healthy Eating: Case Study for a Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Mobile Health Intervention in Medication Adherence: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical systems · 2025Pooled it
- Quality Assessment of Digital Health Apps: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Assessing Patient Adherence to and Engagement With Digital Interventions for Depression in Clinical Trials: Systematic Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Mobile-Based Application Interventions to Enhance Cancer Control and Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.International journal of public health · 2023Pooled it
- Frameworks for assessing digital health technologies: a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- Personal medical data protection of mobile pharmacy apps in China 2025: scale development and content analysis.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- The repaired man or the man with extras: medical human-cyborgs.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Mental health app crisis support assessment framework: development and pilot testing.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Five years of app evaluation: Insights from a framework in practice - a systematic review on the m-health index and navigation database.Internet interventions · 2025Article
- Suitable Evaluation Frameworks for Disease-Agnostic Platforms for Remote Patient Monitoring: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Developing a standardized framework for evaluating health apps using natural language processing.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- FRAILSURVEY-an mHealth App for Self-Assessment of Frailty Based on the Portuguese Version of the Groningen Frailty Indicator: Validation and Reliability Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- A Narrative Review to Identify Promising Approaches for Digital Health Interventions to Support Emotion Regulation for Adolescents With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.JMIR mental health · 2025Review
- Think-Aloud Testing of a Companion App for Colonoscopy Examinations: Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Assessment of Home-based Monitoring in Adults with Chronic Lung Disease: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- The biopsychosocial perspective on designing mobile health apps for self-management of chronic headaches.Health systems (Basingstoke, England) · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.