ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Quality and Functional Breadth of Publicly Available Mobile Apps Supporting Self-Management After Kidney Transplantation: Cross-Sectional App Store Evaluation.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNonadherence to immunosuppressants and other self-management behaviors remains a major challenge after kidney transplantation. Publicly available mobile apps may support long-term self-management, but their quality and functional breadth remain unclear.
objectiveThis study aimed to identify publicly available mobile apps accessible in South Korea that support self-management after kidney transplantation, evaluate their quality and functional breadth using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics functionality score, and describe gaps in transplant-specific self-management support.
methodsFrom January 13 to 21, 2026, we searched the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store using 6 keywords, including "kidney transplant" and "kidney graft," and selected apps that met the inclusion criteria (n=6). Two trained nursing faculty raters independently evaluated each app using the MARS and IMS functionality score. Interrater reliability was good for the MARS (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.78) and the IMS functionality score (Cohen κ=0.88).
resultsThe mean MARS score across the 6 apps was 4.06 (SD 0.96). Subscale scores were highest for aesthetics (mean 4.22, SD 0.81), followed by functionality (mean 4.13, SD 0.80), information (mean 4.11, SD 0.75), and engagement (mean 3.80, SD 1.32). The mean IMS functionality score was 5.67 (SD 4.27) out of 11 functions, and the "evaluate data" function was included in only 1 (16.7%) app.
conclusionsFew publicly available apps met the eligibility criteria. Although trained-rater MARS assessments were generally favorable, functions involving data evaluation and individualized guidance or intervention were less frequently implemented. Because the apps differed in their intended purposes and the study did not assess end-user usability or clinical outcomes, the findings should be interpreted as a descriptive baseline rather than evidence of usability or effectiveness. Future studies should involve kidney transplant recipients in patient-centered usability and outcome evaluations.
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.