ArticleInternet interventions2021
Evaluating the quality and safety of health-related apps and e-tools: Adapting the Mobile App Rating Scale and developing a quality assurance protocol.
Article in Internet interventions, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Electronic Medication Reconciliation Tools Aimed at Healthcare Professionals to Support Medication Reconciliation: a Systematic Review.Journal of medical systems · 2023Pooled it
- What do older women want from a physical activity program? Stakeholder consultation to optimise design and recruitment for the Active Women over 50 trial.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Feasibility of a digital palliative care intervention (Convoy-Pal) for older adults with heart failure and multiple chronic conditions and their caregivers: a waitlist randomized control trial.BMC palliative care · 2024Trial
- Co-Designing a Fall Prevention Exercise Website to Meet Aged Care Community Needs.Australasian journal on ageing · 2026Article
- User Experiences with Blocking Software and Gambling Recovery: Exploring Motivation, Perceptions & Recovery Supports.Journal of gambling studies · 2026Article
- Acceptability and Perceived Usefulness of a Digital Gambling Harm Minimization Tool: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Arabic Wellness Apps in the MENA Region and Saudi Arabia: Current Evidence and Systematic Evaluation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Frameworks for assessing digital health technologies: a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- CarieCheck: An mHealth App for Caries-Risk Self-Assessment-User-Perceived Usability and Quality in a Pilot Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- mHealth Applications for Childhood Anxiety Disorders: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Directions.Current psychiatry reports · 2025Review
- Digital Health Resilience and Well-Being Interventions for Military Members, Veterans, and Public Safety Personnel: Environmental Scan and Quality Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Review
- Design and Evaluation of ACAFiB-APP, a clinical decision support system for anticoagulant considerations in patients with atrial fibrillation.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Review
- The Mobile Applications for Low Back and Neck Pain Therapy: App Review.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025Review
- Apps and Digital Resources for Child Neurodevelopment, Mental Health, and Well-Being: Review, Evaluation, and Reflection on Current Resources.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Review
- Developing and validating a content quality evaluation tool for cancer mobile applications.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Effect of digital health applications with or without gamification on physical activity and cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Evolutionary Trends in the Adoption, Adaptation, and Abandonment of Mobile Health Technologies: Viewpoint Based on 25 Years of Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Assessing the Utility of a Patient-Facing Diagnostic Tool Among Individuals With Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome: Focus Group Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Improving the Well-Being of People With Advanced Cancer and Their Family Caregivers: Protocol for an Effectiveness-Implementation Trial of a Dyadic Digital Health Intervention (FOCUSau).JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhilst apps and e-tools have tremendous potential as low-cost, scalable mental health intervention and prevention tools, it is essential that consumers and health professionals have a means by which to evaluate their quality and safety.
objectiveThis study aimed to: 1) adapt the original Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) in order to be appropriate for the evaluation of both mobile phone applications as well as e-tools; 2) test the reliability of the revised scale; and 3) develop a quality assurance protocol for identifying and rating new apps and e-tools to determine appropriateness for use in clinical practice.
methodsThe MARS was adapted to include items specific to health-related apps and e-tools, such as the availability of resources, strategies for self-management, and quality information. The 41 apps and e-tools in the standard youth configuration of the InnoWell Platform, a digital tool designed to support or enhance mental health service delivery, were independently rated by two expert raters using the A-MARS. Cronbach's alpha was used to calculate the internal consistency and interclass correlation coefficients were used to calculate interrater reliability.
resultsThe A-MARS was shown to be a reliable scale with acceptable to excellent internal consistency and moderate to excellent interrater reliability across the subscales. Given the ever-increasing number of health information technologies on the market, a protocol to identify and rate new apps and e-tools for potential clinical use is presented.
conclusionsWhilst the A-MARS is a useful tool to guide health professionals as they explore available apps and e-tools for potential clinical use, the training, time, and skill required to use it effectively may be prohibitive. As such, health professionals and services are likely to benefit from including a digital navigator as part of the care team to assist in selecting and rating apps and e-tools, increasing the usability of the data, and technology troubleshooting. When selecting, evaluating and/or recommending apps and e-tools to consumers, it is important to consider: 1) the availability of explicit strategies to set, monitor and review SMART goals; 2) the accessibility of credible, user friendly information and resources from reputable sources; 3) evidence of effectiveness; and 4) interoperability with other health information technologies.
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.