German Mobile Apps in Rheumatology: Review and Analysis Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS)

IF 5.4 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
J. Knitza, K. Tascilar, Eva-Maria Messner, M. Meyer, D. Vossen, Almut Pulla, P. Bosch, J. Kittler, A. Kleyer, P. Sewerin, J. Mucke, I. Haase, D. Simon, M. Krusche
{"title":"German Mobile Apps in Rheumatology: Review and Analysis Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS)","authors":"J. Knitza, K. Tascilar, Eva-Maria Messner, M. Meyer, D. Vossen, Almut Pulla, P. Bosch, J. Kittler, A. Kleyer, P. Sewerin, J. Mucke, I. Haase, D. Simon, M. Krusche","doi":"10.2196/14991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Chronic rheumatic diseases need long-term treatment and professional supervision. Mobile apps promise to improve the lives of patients and physicians. In routine practice, however, rheumatology apps are largely unknown and little is known about their quality and safety. Objective The aim of this study was to provide an overview of mobile rheumatology apps currently available in German app stores, evaluate app quality using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), and compile brief, ready-to-use descriptions for patients and rheumatologists. Methods The German App Store and Google Play store were systematically searched to identify German rheumatology mobile apps for patient and physician use. MARS was used to independently assess app quality by 8 physicians, 4 using Android and 4 using iOS smartphones. Apps were randomly assigned so that 4 apps were rated by all raters and the remaining apps were rated by two Android and two iOS users. Furthermore, brief app descriptions including app developers, app categories, and features were compiled to inform potential users and developers. Results In total, 128 and 63 apps were identified in the German Google Play and App Store, respectively. After removing duplicates and only including apps that were available in both stores, 28 apps remained. Sixteen apps met the inclusion criteria, which were (1) German language, (2) availability in both app stores, (3) targeting patients or physicians as users, and (4) clearly including rheumatology or rheumatic diseases as subject matter. Exclusion criteria were (1) congress apps and (2) company apps with advertisements. Nine apps addressed patients and 7 apps addressed physicians. No clinical studies to support the effectiveness and safety of apps could be found. Pharmaceutical companies were the main developers of two apps. Rheuma Auszeit was the only app mainly developed by a patient organization. This app had the highest overall MARS score (4.19/5). Three out of 9 patient apps featured validated questionnaires. The median overall MARS score was 3.85/5, ranging from 2.81/5 to 4.19/5. One patient-targeted and one physician-targeted app had MARS scores >4/5. No significant rater gender or platform (iOS/Android) differences could be observed. The overall correlation between app store ratings and MARS scores was low and inconsistent between platforms. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study that systematically identified and evaluated mobile apps in rheumatology for patients and physicians available in German app stores. We found a lack of supporting clinical studies, use of validated questionnaires, and involvement of academic developers. Overall app quality was heterogeneous. To create high-quality apps, closer cooperation led by patients and physicians is vital.","PeriodicalId":14756,"journal":{"name":"JMIR mHealth and uHealth","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"119","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR mHealth and uHealth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/14991","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 119

Abstract

Background Chronic rheumatic diseases need long-term treatment and professional supervision. Mobile apps promise to improve the lives of patients and physicians. In routine practice, however, rheumatology apps are largely unknown and little is known about their quality and safety. Objective The aim of this study was to provide an overview of mobile rheumatology apps currently available in German app stores, evaluate app quality using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), and compile brief, ready-to-use descriptions for patients and rheumatologists. Methods The German App Store and Google Play store were systematically searched to identify German rheumatology mobile apps for patient and physician use. MARS was used to independently assess app quality by 8 physicians, 4 using Android and 4 using iOS smartphones. Apps were randomly assigned so that 4 apps were rated by all raters and the remaining apps were rated by two Android and two iOS users. Furthermore, brief app descriptions including app developers, app categories, and features were compiled to inform potential users and developers. Results In total, 128 and 63 apps were identified in the German Google Play and App Store, respectively. After removing duplicates and only including apps that were available in both stores, 28 apps remained. Sixteen apps met the inclusion criteria, which were (1) German language, (2) availability in both app stores, (3) targeting patients or physicians as users, and (4) clearly including rheumatology or rheumatic diseases as subject matter. Exclusion criteria were (1) congress apps and (2) company apps with advertisements. Nine apps addressed patients and 7 apps addressed physicians. No clinical studies to support the effectiveness and safety of apps could be found. Pharmaceutical companies were the main developers of two apps. Rheuma Auszeit was the only app mainly developed by a patient organization. This app had the highest overall MARS score (4.19/5). Three out of 9 patient apps featured validated questionnaires. The median overall MARS score was 3.85/5, ranging from 2.81/5 to 4.19/5. One patient-targeted and one physician-targeted app had MARS scores >4/5. No significant rater gender or platform (iOS/Android) differences could be observed. The overall correlation between app store ratings and MARS scores was low and inconsistent between platforms. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study that systematically identified and evaluated mobile apps in rheumatology for patients and physicians available in German app stores. We found a lack of supporting clinical studies, use of validated questionnaires, and involvement of academic developers. Overall app quality was heterogeneous. To create high-quality apps, closer cooperation led by patients and physicians is vital.
德国风湿病学移动应用程序:使用移动应用程序评分量表(MARS)的回顾和分析
背景慢性风湿性疾病需要长期治疗和专业监护。移动应用程序有望改善患者和医生的生活。然而,在日常实践中,风湿病应用程序在很大程度上是未知的,对其质量和安全性知之甚少。目的本研究的目的是概述目前在德国应用商店中可用的移动风湿病应用程序,使用移动应用程序评分量表(MARS)评估应用程序的质量,并为患者和风湿病学家编写简短的现成描述。方法系统搜索德国应用商店和谷歌Play商店,以识别供患者和医生使用的德国风湿病手机应用程序。MARS用于独立评估8名医生的应用程序质量,其中4名使用Android,4名使用iOS智能手机。应用程序被随机分配,所有评分者对4个应用程序进行评分,其余应用程序由两名Android和两名iOS用户进行评分。此外,还编写了包括应用程序开发人员、应用程序类别和功能在内的简短应用程序描述,以告知潜在用户和开发人员。结果在德国Google Play和App Store中总共分别发现了128个和63个应用程序。在删除重复的应用程序并仅包括两个商店中可用的应用程序后,剩下28个应用程序。16款应用程序符合入选标准,分别是:(1)德语;(2)两个应用程序商店都有可用性;(3)以患者或医生为用户;(4)明确将风湿病或风湿性疾病作为主题。排除标准为(1)会议应用程序和(2)带有广告的公司应用程序。9款应用程序面向患者,7款应用程序针对医生。没有任何临床研究支持应用程序的有效性和安全性。制药公司是这两款应用程序的主要开发者。Rheuma Auszeit是唯一一款主要由患者组织开发的应用程序。该应用程序的MARS总分最高(4.19/5)。九分之三的患者应用程序都有经过验证的问卷。MARS总分中位数为3.85/5,范围为2.81/5至4.19/5。一名患者和一名医生应用程序的MARS评分>4/5。未观察到评分者性别或平台(iOS/Android)的显著差异。应用商店评分和MARS评分之间的总体相关性很低,而且平台之间不一致。结论据我们所知,这是第一项系统地识别和评估德国应用商店中为患者和医生提供的风湿病移动应用程序的研究。我们发现缺乏支持性的临床研究、有效问卷的使用以及学术开发人员的参与。整体应用程序质量参差不齐。要创建高质量的应用程序,由患者和医生领导的更紧密的合作至关重要。
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
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
JMIR mHealth and uHealth Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
159
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: JMIR mHealth and uHealth (JMU, ISSN 2291-5222) is a spin-off journal of JMIR, the leading eHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175). JMIR mHealth and uHealth is indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), and in June 2017 received a stunning inaugural Impact Factor of 4.636. The journal focusses on health and biomedical applications in mobile and tablet computing, pervasive and ubiquitous computing, wearable computing and domotics. JMIR mHealth and uHealth publishes since 2013 and was the first mhealth journal in Pubmed. It publishes even faster and has a broader scope with including papers which are more technical or more formative/developmental than what would be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
×
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