Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38751854›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2024

Quality assessment of mHealth apps: a scoping review.

Godwin Denk Giebel, Christian Speckemeier, Nils Frederik Schrader, Carina Abels, Felix Plescher, Vivienne Hillerich, Desiree Wiedemann, Kirstin Börchers, Jürgen Wasem, Nikola Blase and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Inhaled Allergy Diagnostics and Treatment in a Polluted Environment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

11 authors.

Godwin Denk Giebel *Institute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Christian Speckemeier *Institute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Nils Frederik SchraderInstitute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Carina AbelsInstitute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Felix PlescherInstitute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Vivienne HillerichInstitute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Desiree WiedemannInstitute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Kirstin BörchersQM BÖRCHERS CONSULTING+, Herne, Germany.
Jürgen WasemInstitute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Nikola BlaseInstitute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Silke NeusserInstitute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The number of mHealth apps has increased rapidly during recent years. Literature suggests a number of problems and barriers to the adoption of mHealth apps, including issues such as validity, usability, as well as data privacy and security. Continuous quality assessment and assurance systems might help to overcome these barriers. Aim of this scoping review was to collate literature on quality assessment tools and quality assurance systems for mHealth apps, compile the components of the tools, and derive overarching quality dimensions, which are potentially relevant for the continuous quality assessment of mHealth apps. Methods: Literature searches were performed in Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo. Articles in English or German language were included if they contained information on development, application, or validation of generic concepts of quality assessment or quality assurance of mHealth apps. Screening and extraction were carried out by two researchers independently. Identified quality criteria and aspects were extracted and clustered into quality dimensions. Results: A total of 70 publications met inclusion criteria. Included publications contain information on five quality assurance systems and further 24 quality assessment tools for mHealth apps. Of these 29 systems/tools, 8 were developed for the assessment of mHealth apps for specific diseases, 16 for assessing mHealth apps for all fields of health and another five are not restricted to health apps. Identified quality criteria and aspects were extracted and grouped into a total of 14 quality dimensions, namely "information and transparency", "validity and (added) value", "(medical) safety", "interoperability and compatibility", "actuality", "engagement", "data privacy and data security", "usability and design", "technology", "organizational aspects", "social aspects", "legal aspects", "equity and equality", and "cost(-effectiveness)". Discussion: This scoping review provides a broad overview of existing quality assessment and assurance systems. Many of the tools included cover only a few dimensions and aspects and therefore do not allow for a comprehensive quality assessment or quality assurance. Our findings can contribute to the development of continuous quality assessment and assurance systems for mHealth apps. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.researchprotocols.org/2022/7/e36974/, International Registered Report Identifier, IRRID (DERR1-10.2196/36974).

Indexed as

appsassessmentDigital Health ApplicationmHealthqualityscoping review

Identifiers

PMID38751854
PMCPMC11094264

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.