ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021
Assessing Apps for Health Care Workers Using the ISYScore-Pro Scale: Development and Validation Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Validation of Digital Healthcare Solutions: State of the Art, Challenges and Opportunities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Evaluation of software technical quality for collecting data from patients under palliative care.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2024Article
- A systematic appraisal of the information, engagement, aesthetic and functional quality of nutrition-related smartphone apps for children and adolescents.Public health nutrition · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe presence of mobile phone and smart devices has allowed for the use of mobile apps to support patient care. However, there is a paucity in our knowledge regarding recommendations for mobile apps specific to health care professionals.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to establish a validated instrument to assess mobile apps for health care providers and health systems. Our objective is to create and validate a tool that evaluates mobile health apps aimed at health care professionals based on a trust, utility, and interest scale.
methodsA five-step methodology framework guided our approach. The first step consisted of building a scale to evaluate apps for health care professionals based on a literature review. This was followed with expert panel validation through a Delphi method of (rated) web-based questionnaires to empirically evaluate the inclusion and weight of the indicators identified through the literature review. Repeated iterations were followed until a consensus greater than 75% was reached. The scale was then tested using a pilot to assess reliability. Interrater agreement of the pilot was measured using a weighted Cohen kappa.
resultsUsing a literature review, a first draft of the scale was developed. This was followed with two Delphi rounds between the local research group and an external panel of experts. After consensus was reached, the resulting ISYScore-Pro 17-item scale was tested. A total of 280 apps were originally identified for potential testing (140 iOS apps and 140 Android apps). These were categorized using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision. Once duplicates were removed and they were downloaded to confirm their specificity to the target audience (ie, health care professionals), 66 remained. Of these, only 18 met the final criteria for inclusion in validating the ISYScore-Pro scale (interrator reliabilty 92.2%; kappa 0.840, 95% CI 0.834-0.847; P<.001).
conclusionsWe have developed a reproducible methodology to objectively evaluate mobile health apps targeted to health care professionals and providers, the ISYScore-Pro scale. Future research will be needed to adapt the scale to other languages and across other domains (eg, legal compliance or security).
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.