Cited by 900Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Learning in Education

Mobile Health Technology Evaluation

Open access
Kumar, Santosh, Nilsen, Wendy J., Abernethy, Amy, Atienza, Audie, Patrick, Kevin, Pavel, Misha, Riley, William T., Shar, Albert +11 more·2013·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Creative use of new mobile and wearable health information and sensing technologies (mHealth) has the potential to reduce the cost of health care and improve well-being in numerous ways. These applications are being developed in a variety of domains, but rigorous research is needed to examine the potential, as well as the challenges, of utilizing mobile technologies to improve health outcomes. Currently, evidence is sparse for the efficacy of mHealth. Although these technologies may be appealing and seemingly innocuous, research is needed to assess when, where, and for whom mHealth devices, apps, and systems are efficacious. In order to outline an approach to evidence generation in the field of mHealth that would ensure research is conducted on a rigorous empirical and theoretic foundation, on August 16, 2011, researchers gathered for the mHealth Evidence Workshop at NIH. The current paper presents the results of the workshop. Although the discussions at the meeting were cross-cutting, the areas covered can be categorized broadly into three areas: (1) evaluating assessments; (2) evaluating interventions; and (3) reshaping evidence generation using mHealth. This paper brings these concepts together to describe current evaluation standards, discuss future possibilities, and set a grand goal for the emerging field of mHealth research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.017

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The evidence base for mHealth approaches improving health outcomes is lacking.

    “Much recent mHealth literature has drawn attention to the fact that the evidence base for mHealth approaches improving health outcomes is lacking [40, 41].”
  • Design guidelines for mHealth applications are not readily available.

    “While the design and the relevance of an mHealth app influence its uptake and ultimately its success, design guidelines are not readily available [4, 5].”

    From A user-centred design framework for mHealth (2020) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Introduction discusses limited evidence for mHealth efficacy, and “Using Open Infrastructure and Data Standards” proposes common research standards (page numbers unavailable). Neither passage addresses whether design guidelines for mHealth applications are readily available. Searched for app-design guidelines and guidelines. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interventions developed and tested may not have been reported as a scientific study; this is a well-known phenomenon in a field arguably driven by commercial developers as opposed to clinical-academic researchers.

    “Also, interventions developed and tested may not have been reported as a scientific study; a well-known phenomenon in a field that is arguably driven by commercial developers as opposed to clinical-academic researchers (Kumar et al., 2013;Meurk, Leung, Hall, Head, & Whiteford, 2016;Musiat et al., 2014).”
  • Because technology advances much faster than research methods, digital mental health tools are often obsolete by the time they are validated.

    “The rapid pace of technology development relative to the slow pace of research methods often results in mental health technologies that are outdated and obsolete by the time they are validated (6).”
  • The unrealized potential of mHealth apps is in part due to difficulties of generating a solid evidence base to guide clinical, policy, and regulatory decision making.

    “This is, in part, due to the difficulties of generating a solid evidence base to guide clinical, policy, and regulatory decision making [90].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [5]Gupta S Chang P Anyigbo N Sabharwal A mobileSpiro: Accurate Mobile Spirometry for Self-Management of Asthma Proceedings of ACM mHealthSys 2011 Article 1
  2. [8]Ali A Hossain SM Hovsepian K Rahman M Kumar S SmokeTrack: Automated Detection of Cigarette Smoking in the Mobile Environment from Respiration Measurements Proceedings of ACM/IEEE Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks 2012 269 280
  3. [22]Mohr DC Duan N Continuous Evaluation of Evolving Interventions mHealth Evidence Workshop August 16, 2011 Washington DC
  4. [33]Rahman M Ali AA Plarre K al’Absi M Ertin E Kumar S mConverse: Inferring Conversation Episodes from Respiratory Measurements Collected in the Field Proceedings of ACM Wireless Health 2011
  5. [37]Estrin D Sim I Open mHealth architecture: an engine for health care innovation Science 2010a 330 6005 759 760 21051617

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kumar, S., Nilsen, W. J., Abernethy, A., Atienza, A., Patrick, K., Pavel, M., Riley, W. T., Shar, A., Spring, B., Spruijt-Metz, D., Hedeker, D., Honavar, V., Kravitz, R., Craig Lefebvre, R., Mohr, D. C., Murphy, S. A., Quinn, C., Shusterman, V., & Swendeman, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Memphis (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • U.S. National Science Foundation (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Nilsen, Wendy J.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-08
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
228-236
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2142505388
Cited by
900
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 81 · 2020: 104 · 2019: 109 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 91 · 2016: 89 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 11
FWCI
124.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 OD999999, UL1TR000150)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P30MH058107)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50DA010075)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
Keywords
mobile health, wearable health technology, evidence generation, evaluation standards, intervention evaluation, outcome measurement, healthcare cost reduction, well-being
MeSH terms
Diffusion of Innovation, Forecasting, Humans, Quality of Health Care, Reproducibility of Results, Computer Security, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Telemedicine, Biomedical Technology, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review