ArticlemHealth2021
Evaluation of two mobile health apps for patients with breast cancer using the Mobile Application Rating Scale.
Article in mHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Co-Design Study Developing an Early Prototype Intervention to Support Oral Anticancer Medication Use in Breast Cancer.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Expert evaluation of mobile health apps for breast cancer management: a feature-based analysis using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS).BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of Dental Caries Risk Assessment Using CaRisk- A Simple Mobile Based Application and WHO deft, DMFT Scores: A Cross Sectional Study.Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 2024Article
- Assessing the Quality, Privacy, and Security of Breast Cancer Apps for Arabic Speakers: Systematic Search and Review of Smartphone Apps.JMIR cancer · 2024Article
- Menstrual Tracking Mobile App Review by Consumers and Health Care Providers: Quality Evaluations Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Review
- Article
- Development, usability and quality evaluation of the resilient mobile application for women with breast cancer.Health science reports · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers worldwide. Screening, education about signs and symptoms, and improved access to treatment has helped reduce mortality. An understanding of the informational needs of women with breast cancer can help identify areas where mobile apps can further improve the experience of this patient group.
methodsPersonas are a commonly used tools in user centred design to help represent particular user archetypes. Knowledge of existing informational needs and prior research using personas in breast cancer app design were used to create two different personas through which to source apps for evaluation. The Mobile Application Rating Scale, a common evaluation framework, was used to evaluate the mobile apps across several important domains.
resultsBecca and OWise, two apps for breast cancer, were found through a discovery process in line with the personas described. Overall, both apps scored highly on the Mobile Application Rating Scale. Both apps had limited or no research to support their use in this patient group, and had issues related to data privacy. Becca scored particularly highly in domains related to accessibility while OWise's extensive range of features scored highly for functionality.
conclusionsBoth apps demonstrate the ability to fill an informational needs gap as evidenced in the existing literature. As with many mobile health apps, more clinical evidence and improved data handling would help support the widespread recommendation of their use in women who are undergoing or have completed treatment for breast cancer.
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.