ArticlePloS one2024
Don't judge a book or health app by its cover: User ratings and downloads are not linked to quality.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Commercially available mobile health applications for obesity across the lifespan: a systematic search and quality assessment.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond Usage Time: Rethinking Therapeutic Dose and Effect in Digital Therapeutics.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- The Role of Rating Valence in AI Skin Cancer App Acceptance: Eye-Tracking and Questionnaire Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Model for Mental health Access and service use (CoMMA): A process model for technology-enhanced mental healthcare.Internet interventions · 2026Review
- The Quality and Characteristics of Digital Mental Health Apps: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Recent Advances in AI-Driven Mobile Health Enhancing Healthcare-Narrative Insights into Latest Progress.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Defining and Measuring Engagement and Adherence in Digital Mental Health Interventions: Protocol for an Umbrella Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Grouping Digital Health Apps Based on Their Quality and User Ratings Using K-Medoids Clustering: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Health App Assessments Among Health Care Stakeholders: Discrete Choice Experiment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Testing and Iterative Improvement of the CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 Health App Quality Assessment: Pilot Interrater Reliability Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Digital wellness or digital dependency? a critical examination of mental health apps and their implications.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- An evaluation and refinement of the "Hep B Story" app, tailored to meet the community's cultural needs.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse the relationship between health app quality with user ratings and the number of downloads of corresponding health apps. MATERIALS AND
methodsUtilising a dataset of 881 Android-based health apps, assessed via the 300-point objective Organisation for the Review of Care and Health Applications (ORCHA) assessment tool, we explored whether subjective user-level indicators of quality (user ratings and downloads) correlate with objective quality scores in the domains of user experience, data privacy and professional/clinical assurance. For this purpose, we applied spearman correlation and multiple linear regression models.
resultsFor user experience, professional/clinical assurance and data privacy scores, all models had very low adjusted R squared values (< .02). Suggesting that there is no meaningful link between subjective user ratings or the number of health app downloads and objective quality measures. Spearman correlations suggested that prior downloads only had a very weak positive correlation with user experience scores (Spearman = .084, p = .012) and data privacy scores (Spearman = .088, p = .009). There was a very weak negative correlation between downloads and professional/clinical assurance score (Spearman = -.081, p = .016). Additionally, user ratings demonstrated a very weak correlation with no statistically significant correlations observed between user ratings and the scores (all p > 0.05). For ORCHA scores multiple linear regression had adjusted R-squared = -.002.
conclusionThis study highlights that widely available proxies which users may perceive to signify the quality of health apps, namely user ratings and downloads, are inaccurate predictors for estimating quality. This indicates the need for wider use of quality assurance methodologies which can accurately determine the quality, safety, and compliance of health apps. Findings suggest more should be done to enable users to recognise high-quality health apps, including digital health literacy training and the provision of nationally endorsed "libraries".
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.