ArticleFrontiers in health services2024
Quality assessment of mHealth apps: a scoping review.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- mHealth-supported tuberculosis contact investigation by community health workers in high-burden countries: a scoping review.Global health action · 2026Article
- Awareness, Preferences, and Willingness to Download Pregnancy Health Management Apps Among Women in Louisiana: Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Five years of app evaluation: Insights from a framework in practice - a systematic review on the m-health index and navigation database.Internet interventions · 2025Article
- Inhaled Allergy Diagnostics and Treatment in a Polluted Environment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Developing a standardized framework for evaluating health apps using natural language processing.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Implementation and User Satisfaction Analysis of an Electronic Medication Reconciliation Tool (ConciliaMed) in Patients Undergoing Elective Colorectal Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Quality Evaluating Mobile Health Apps for Oral Hygiene Management Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS): A Systematic Review of Smartphone App Markets.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Review
- Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess the Usability of and User Experience with Mobile Health Applications.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- French Version of the User Mobile Application Rating Scale: Adaptation and Validation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
- RegulEm, an unified protocol based-app for the treatment of emotional disorders: a parallel mixed methods usability and quality study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.