Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35348467›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2022

Quality of Mobile Apps for Care Partners of People With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias: Mobile App Rating Scale Evaluation.

Nicole E Werner, Janetta C Brown, Priya Loganathar, Richard J Holden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nicole E WernerDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2363-9491
Janetta C BrownIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5244-6133
Priya LoganatharDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9483-2849
Richard J HoldenDepartment of Health & Wellness Design, School of Public Health-Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3603-6158

Funding

Brain Safe: Consumer Intervention to Reduce Exposure to Drugs Linked to Alzheimer's DiseaseR01AG056926 · NIA · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI HOLDEN, RICHARD J · 2019 to 2023
$3.6M
Development of a Caregiver Application and AI-Enabled Intelligent Assistant to Support Families and Formal Care Providers in Caring for Persons with Alzheimer's Disease and Related DementiasR41AG069607 · NIA · WHIPLASH TECHNOLOGY, INC. · PI WERNER, NICOLE E · 2020 to 2021
$530k
Technology Intervention to Support Caregiving for Alzheimer's Disease (I-CARE)R21AG062966 · NIA · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI BOUSTANI, MALAZ, HOLDEN, RICHARD J · 2019 to 2020
$427k
Helping the helpers: User-centered technology to aid caregiver management of medications for people with ADRDR21AG072418 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI HOLDEN, RICHARD J, WERNER, NICOLE E · 2021 to 2021
$425k
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG056926NIA NIH HHS R21 AG062966NIA NIH HHS R21 AG072418NIA NIH HHS R41 AG069607
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver 11 million care partners in the United States who provide care to people living with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) cite persistent and pervasive unmet needs related to their caregiving role. The proliferation of mobile apps for care partners has the potential to meet care partners' needs, but the quality of apps is unknown.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the quality of publicly available apps for care partners of people living with ADRD and identify design features of low- and high-quality apps to guide future research and user-centered app development.

methodsWe searched the US Apple App and Google Play stores with the criteria that included apps needed to be available in the US Google Play or Apple App stores, accessible to users out of the box, and primarily intended for use by an informal (family or friend) care partner of a person living with ADRD. We classified and tabulated app functionalities. The included apps were then evaluated using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) using 23 items across 5 dimensions: engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information, and subjective quality. We computed descriptive statistics for each rating. To identify recommendations for future research and app development, we categorized rater comments on score-driving factors for each MARS rating item and what the app could have done to improve the item score.

resultsWe evaluated 17 apps. We found that, on average, apps are of minimally acceptable quality. Functionalities supported by apps included education (12/17, 71%), interactive training (3/17, 18%), documentation (3/17, 18%), tracking symptoms (2/17, 12%), care partner community (3/17, 18%), interaction with clinical experts (1/17, 6%), care coordination (2/17, 12%), and activities for the person living with ADRD (2/17, 12%). Of the 17 apps, 8 (47%) had only 1 feature, 6 (35%) had 2 features, and 3 (18%) had 3 features. The MARS quality mean score across apps was 3.08 (SD 0.83) on the 5-point rating scale (1=inadequate to 5=excellent), with apps scoring highest on average on functionality (mean 3.37, SD 0.99) and aesthetics (mean 3.24, SD 0.92) and lowest on average on information (mean 2.95, SD 0.95) and engagement (mean 2.76, SD 0.89). The MARS subjective quality mean score across apps was 2.26 (SD 1.02).

conclusionsWe identified apps whose mean scores were more than 1 point below minimally acceptable quality, whereas some were more than 1 point above. Many apps had broken features and were rated as below acceptable for engagement and information. Minimally acceptable quality is likely to be insufficient to meet care partner needs. Future research should establish minimum quality standards across dimensions for care partner mobile apps. Design features of high-quality apps identified in this study can provide the foundation for benchmarking these standards.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseMobile ApplicationsCaregiversDelivery of Health CareHumansUnited StatesAlzheimer disease and related dementiascaregiversdementia caregivingeHealthmHealthmobile appmobile phonetelehealth

Identifiers

PMID35348467
PMCPMC9006134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.