ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021
Promoting Health via mHealth Applications Using a French Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale: Adaptation 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 25 papers, 3 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Smartphone Apps for Preventing Adolescent Health Problems Among Health Care Professionals: Systematic Search and Quality Assessment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of fatty liver disease self-care applications: a systematic review and evaluation of apps using the mobile application rating scale (MARS).BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Symptom tracking for endometriosis: a systematic review protocol for mobile applications focused on content, inclusivity and features.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Psychometric Validation of the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale in China: Instrument Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Trustworthiness of Web-Based Pharmacy Apps in Pakistan Based on the Mobile App Rating Scale: Content Analysis and Quality Evaluation.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- A New Mobile App to Train Attention Processes in People With Traumatic Brain Injury: Logical and Ecological Content Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Translation and validation of the traditional Chinese Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-TW) for evaluating mHealth apps.mHealth · 2025Article
- The Mobile Applications for Low Back and Neck Pain Therapy: App Review.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025Review
- Article
- French Version of the User Mobile Application Rating Scale: Adaptation and Validation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
- Quality Assessment of Smartphone Medication Management Apps in France: Systematic Search.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
- mHealth App Usability Questionnaire for Stand-Alone mHealth Apps Used by Health Care Providers: Canadian French Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation (Part 1).JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Assessment of healthcare application quality: Development of a standardized methods for healthcare professionals.MethodsX · 2023Article
- The Most Popular Commercial Weight Management Apps in the Chinese App Store: Analysis of Quality, Features, and Behavior Change Techniques.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
- App-based oral health promotion interventions on modifiable risk factors associated with early childhood caries: A systematic review.Frontiers in oral health · 2023Review
- A Systematic Assessment of the Quality of Smartphone Applications for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.Gastro hep advances · 2023Article
- The Persian Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS-Fa): Translation and Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Evaluating and rating HIV/AIDS mobile apps using the feature-based application rating method and mobile app rating scale.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Mental Health Mobile Apps in the French App Store: Assessment Study of Functionality and Quality.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Article
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
backgroundIn the recent decades, the number of apps promoting health behaviors and health-related strategies and interventions has increased alongside the number of smartphone users. Nevertheless, the validity process for measuring and reporting app quality remains unsatisfactory for health professionals and end users and represents a public health concern. The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) is a tool validated and widely used in the scientific literature to evaluate and compare mHealth app functionalities. However, MARS is not adapted to the French culture nor to the language.
objectiveThis study aims to translate, adapt, and validate the equivalent French version of MARS (ie, MARS-F).
methodsThe original MARS was first translated to French by two independent bilingual scientists, and their common version was blind back-translated twice by two native English speakers, culminating in a final well-established MARS-F. Its comprehensibility was then evaluated by 6 individuals (3 researchers and 3 nonacademics), and the final MARS-F version was created. Two bilingual raters independently completed the evaluation of 63 apps using MARS and MARS-F. Interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. In addition, internal consistency and validity of both scales were assessed. Mokken scale analysis was used to investigate the scalability of both MARS and MARS-F.
resultsMARS-F had a good alignment with the original MARS, with properties comparable between the two scales. The correlation coefficients (r) between the corresponding dimensions of MARS and MARS-F ranged from 0.97 to 0.99. The internal consistencies of the MARS-F dimensions engagement (ω=0.79), functionality (ω=0.79), esthetics (ω=0.78), and information quality (ω=0.61) were acceptable and that for the overall MARS score (ω=0.86) was good. Mokken scale analysis revealed a strong scalability for MARS (Loevinger H=0.37) and a good scalability for MARS-F (H=0.35).
conclusionsMARS-F is a valid tool, and it would serve as a crucial aid for researchers, health care professionals, public health authorities, and interested third parties, to assess the quality of mHealth apps in French-speaking countries.
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.