Mobile Apps for Vaccination Services: Content Analysis and Quality Assessment.

Chenchen Zhang, Xing Guo, Rui Zhu, Wenjie Hou, Lingmeng Wang, Fuzhi Wang, Li Zhang, Dan Luo
{"title":"Mobile Apps for Vaccination Services: Content Analysis and Quality Assessment.","authors":"Chenchen Zhang, Xing Guo, Rui Zhu, Wenjie Hou, Lingmeng Wang, Fuzhi Wang, Li Zhang, Dan Luo","doi":"10.2196/50364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vaccination services are increasingly in demand by the public, and mobile apps are an effective tool to meet that demand. However, the characteristics and quality of these apps are unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Commonly used vaccination service apps on the market were surveyed with regard to quality, service content, and user experience to evaluate and guide users.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Qimai Data mobile app data analytics platform was used to search for common vaccination service apps by keyword, and the WeChat and Alipay platforms were searched for apps. The apps included in the study were independently evaluated by two reviewers using the Mobile Application Rating Scale, and the service content and user experience of the apps were analyzed. The intragroup correlation coefficient between raters was used to measure interrater reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the app stores of the four major Android platforms and the iOS app store, 1092 and 207 apps were found, respectively; 189 WeChat applets and 30 Alipay applets were also found. A total of 29 apps was ultimately included in this study according to the inclusion criteria, including 21 independent apps, 4 WeChat applets, and 4 Alipay applets. Significant differences were found between independent apps and applets in terms of the quality score (t<sub>449.57</sub>=-5.301; P<.001) and the subjective quality score (z=-4.753; P<.001). No significant differences were found between iOS and Android platforms in terms of the quality score (t<sub>1404</sub>=-2.55; P=.80) and the subjective quality score (z=-0.137; P=.89). There was good intragroup consistency among the raters.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, independent apps and nonindependent apps that rely on social and payment platforms for implementation were included in the vaccination services category. The overall quality of these apps was acceptable. Nonindependent running apps were found to have slightly lower scores and showed room for improvement, and scores for the participatory apps were found to be generally low overall.</p>","PeriodicalId":74345,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of public health informatics","volume":"16 ","pages":"e50364"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487208/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Online journal of public health informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/50364","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Vaccination services are increasingly in demand by the public, and mobile apps are an effective tool to meet that demand. However, the characteristics and quality of these apps are unknown.

Objective: Commonly used vaccination service apps on the market were surveyed with regard to quality, service content, and user experience to evaluate and guide users.

Methods: The Qimai Data mobile app data analytics platform was used to search for common vaccination service apps by keyword, and the WeChat and Alipay platforms were searched for apps. The apps included in the study were independently evaluated by two reviewers using the Mobile Application Rating Scale, and the service content and user experience of the apps were analyzed. The intragroup correlation coefficient between raters was used to measure interrater reliability.

Results: In the app stores of the four major Android platforms and the iOS app store, 1092 and 207 apps were found, respectively; 189 WeChat applets and 30 Alipay applets were also found. A total of 29 apps was ultimately included in this study according to the inclusion criteria, including 21 independent apps, 4 WeChat applets, and 4 Alipay applets. Significant differences were found between independent apps and applets in terms of the quality score (t449.57=-5.301; P<.001) and the subjective quality score (z=-4.753; P<.001). No significant differences were found between iOS and Android platforms in terms of the quality score (t1404=-2.55; P=.80) and the subjective quality score (z=-0.137; P=.89). There was good intragroup consistency among the raters.

Conclusions: In this study, independent apps and nonindependent apps that rely on social and payment platforms for implementation were included in the vaccination services category. The overall quality of these apps was acceptable. Nonindependent running apps were found to have slightly lower scores and showed room for improvement, and scores for the participatory apps were found to be generally low overall.

疫苗接种服务移动应用程序:内容分析与质量评估
背景:公众对疫苗接种服务的需求与日俱增,而移动应用程序是满足这一需求的有效工具。然而,这些应用程序的特点和质量却不为人知:调查市场上常用的疫苗接种服务应用程序的质量、服务内容和用户体验,以便对用户进行评估和指导:方法:利用启迈数据移动应用数据分析平台,通过关键词搜索常见的预防接种服务类应用,并在微信和支付宝平台上搜索应用。研究中的应用由两名评审员使用移动应用评分量表进行独立评估,并对应用的服务内容和用户体验进行分析。评测者之间的组内相关系数用于衡量评测者之间的可靠性:在四大安卓平台的应用商店和 iOS 应用商店中,分别发现了 1092 个和 207 个应用程序;还发现了 189 个微信小程序和 30 个支付宝小程序。根据纳入标准,本研究最终共纳入 29 个应用程序,包括 21 个独立应用程序、4 个微信小程序和 4 个支付宝小程序。独立小程序和小程序在质量得分(t449.57=-5.301;P1404=-2.55;P=.80)和主观质量得分(z=-0.137;P=.89)方面存在显著差异。评分者之间的组内一致性良好:在本研究中,依靠社交和支付平台实施的独立应用程序和非独立应用程序被纳入了疫苗接种服务类别。这些应用程序的总体质量是可以接受的。非独立运行应用程序的得分略低,有改进的余地,而参与式应用程序的得分总体较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信