Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35984688›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Modification and Validation of an mHealth App Quality Assessment Methodology for International Use: Cross-sectional and eDelphi Studies.

Fionn Woulfe, Kayode Philip Fadahunsi, Michael O'Grady, Griphin Baxter Chirambo, Mala Mawkin, Azeem Majeed, Simon Smith, Patrick Henn, John O'Donoghue

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Fionn Woulfe *School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5581-3426
Kayode Philip Fadahunsi *Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1470-5493
Michael O'GradySchool of Computer Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3024-3666
Griphin Baxter ChiramboFaculty of Health Sciences, Mzuzu University, Mzuzu, Malawi.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6067-1840
Mala MawkinSchool of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0711-6156
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2357-9858
Simon SmithSchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9623-640X
Patrick HennASSERT Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5958-6163
John O'DonoghueASSERT Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6056-8640
University College Cork · IEImperial College London · GBMzuzu University · MWUniversity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver 325,000 mobile health (mHealth) apps are available to download across various app stores. However, quality assurance in this field of medicine remains relatively undefined. Globally, around 84% of the population have access to mobile broadband networks. Given the potential for mHealth app use in health promotion and disease prevention, their role in patient care worldwide is ever apparent. Quality assurance regulations both nationally and internationally will take time to develop. Frameworks such as the Mobile App Rating Scale and Enlight Suite have demonstrated potential for use in the interim. However, these frameworks require adaptation to be suitable for international use.

objectiveThis study aims to modify the Enlight Suite, a comprehensive app quality assessment methodology, to improve its applicability internationally and to assess the preliminary validity and reliability of this modified tool in practice.

methodsA two-round Delphi study involving 7 international mHealth experts with varied backgrounds in health, technology, and clinical psychology was conducted to modify the Enlight Suite for international use and to improve its content validity. The Modified Enlight Suite (MES) was then used by 800 health care professionals and health care students in Ireland to assess a COVID-19 tracker app in an online survey. The reliability of the MES was assessed using Cronbach alpha, while the construct validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis.

resultsThe final version of the MES has 7 sections with 32 evaluating items. Of these items, 5 were novel and based on consensus for inclusion by Delphi panel members. The MES has satisfactory reliability with a Cronbach alpha score of .925. The subscales also demonstrated acceptable internal consistency. Similarly, the confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated a positive and significant factor loading for all 32 items in the MES with a modestly acceptable model fit, thus indicating the construct validity of the MES.

conclusionsThe Enlight Suite was modified to improve its international relevance to app quality assessment by introducing new items relating to cultural appropriateness, accessibility, and readability of mHealth app content. This study indicates both the reliability and validity of the MES for assessing the quality of mHealth apps in a high-income country, with further studies being planned to extrapolate these findings to low- and middle-income countries.

Indexed as

appevaluation toolinternational mHealthmHealthmobile healthsmartphone app

Identifiers

PMID35984688
PMCPMC9497647
OpenAlexW4285030883

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.