Mobile Applications for Hemodialysis: Evaluation Using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS).

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Erfan Esmaeeli, Mohadeseh Sadat Khorashadizadeh, Meysam Rahmani
{"title":"Mobile Applications for Hemodialysis: Evaluation Using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS).","authors":"Erfan Esmaeeli, Mohadeseh Sadat Khorashadizadeh, Meysam Rahmani","doi":"10.1111/sdi.13243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Mobile applications (apps) and social media could be useful in improving the condition of patients on hemodialysis. Despite the rise of mobile health apps in hemodialysis management, no research has evaluated the quality of these apps with reliable tools. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of apps designed for the self-care of patients on hemodialysis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A review of Google Play and App Store mobile platforms was carried out to evaluate the mobile apps used for hemodialysis. These apps were assessed using the mobile application rating scale (MARS), which includes criteria for overall quality, engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information. Search keywords included \"Dialysis,\" \"Kidney Dialysis,\" \"Hemodialysis,\" \"Haemodialysis,\" and \"Peritoneal Dialysis.\" Eligibility criteria included being related to dialysis, being designed specifically for patients, being free, being available in English, and being developed for Android and iOS platforms. The included apps were independently evaluated and rated by two reviewers using MARS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initially, 177 apps were identified, and after the screening and review processes, six apps were selected for qualitative evaluation. The overall scores on MARS varied from 2.33 to 3.67. The \"KidneyPal: Kidney Disease Mgmt\" app received the highest scores in most MARS items. Moreover, the maximum app quality mean score belonged to \"KidneyPal: Kidney Disease Mgmt\" (4.26 out of 5).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings showed a limited number of apps available for hemodialysis, the majority of which were of low quality. The reviewed apps performed well in functionality but obtained lower scores in terms of app subjective quality. Future studies should focus on developing and testing mobile apps using assessment tools, such as MARS, as well as evaluating their impact on health behaviors and outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":21675,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Dialysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Dialysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sdi.13243","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Mobile applications (apps) and social media could be useful in improving the condition of patients on hemodialysis. Despite the rise of mobile health apps in hemodialysis management, no research has evaluated the quality of these apps with reliable tools. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of apps designed for the self-care of patients on hemodialysis.

Materials and methods: A review of Google Play and App Store mobile platforms was carried out to evaluate the mobile apps used for hemodialysis. These apps were assessed using the mobile application rating scale (MARS), which includes criteria for overall quality, engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information. Search keywords included "Dialysis," "Kidney Dialysis," "Hemodialysis," "Haemodialysis," and "Peritoneal Dialysis." Eligibility criteria included being related to dialysis, being designed specifically for patients, being free, being available in English, and being developed for Android and iOS platforms. The included apps were independently evaluated and rated by two reviewers using MARS.

Results: Initially, 177 apps were identified, and after the screening and review processes, six apps were selected for qualitative evaluation. The overall scores on MARS varied from 2.33 to 3.67. The "KidneyPal: Kidney Disease Mgmt" app received the highest scores in most MARS items. Moreover, the maximum app quality mean score belonged to "KidneyPal: Kidney Disease Mgmt" (4.26 out of 5).

Conclusion: The findings showed a limited number of apps available for hemodialysis, the majority of which were of low quality. The reviewed apps performed well in functionality but obtained lower scores in terms of app subjective quality. Future studies should focus on developing and testing mobile apps using assessment tools, such as MARS, as well as evaluating their impact on health behaviors and outcomes.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Seminars in Dialysis
Seminars in Dialysis 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
91
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Seminars in Dialysis is a bimonthly publication focusing exclusively on cutting-edge clinical aspects of dialysis therapy. Besides publishing papers by the most respected names in the field of dialysis, the Journal has unique useful features, all designed to keep you current: -Fellows Forum -Dialysis rounds -Editorials -Opinions -Briefly noted -Summary and Comment -Guest Edited Issues -Special Articles Virtually everything you read in Seminars in Dialysis is written or solicited by the editors after choosing the most effective of nine different editorial styles and formats. They know that facts, speculations, ''how-to-do-it'' information, opinions, and news reports all play important roles in your education and the patient care you provide. Alternate issues of the journal are guest edited and focus on a single clinical topic in dialysis.
×
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