Cited by 154Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsDigital Mental Health Interventions

Challenges in Assessing Mobile Health App Quality

Grundy, Quinn H., Wang, Zhicheng, Bero, Lisa A.·2016·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Context Mobile apps are poised to become a major source of health guidance; however, concerns about their quality and safety remain. Governments, clinicians, and health researchers are struggling to determine how to adequately evaluate the content and function of mobile health apps to guide consumers toward apps that will effectively and safely support their health. Researchers are both adapting existing research methods, such as those for systematic reviews, and exploring novel methods toward this aim. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe prevalent and emerging methods for searching, data extraction, and analysis in the context of mobile health apps and commercial app stores.Evidence acquisition A systematic search was conducted on April 6, 2016, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, for published studies that evaluated health-related apps targeted at consumers in a commercial app store, and a descriptive content analysis of their methods was performed.Evidence synthesis Although the majority of studies self-identified as "reviews" or "systematic reviews," their claims to have performed an exhaustive, replicable, and systematic search and data extraction are unsupported, given the nature of commercial app stores' search engines and personalized app content. Currently, studies of health-related app content are largely descriptive, and most use surrogate and one-dimensional outcome measures for app content quality.Conclusions This field is rapidly developing, and innovative methods for systematic searches, multidimensional quality assessment, and contextualizing content assessment are emerging. Areas for future methodologic development are highlighted, including expanding definitions of app "content" and assessing risk of bias.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.07.009

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grundy, Q. H., Wang, Z., & Bero, L. A.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Grundy, Quinn H.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
51
Issue
6
Pages
1051-1059
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2521913084
Cited by
154
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
mobile health apps, app quality assessment, risk of bias
MeSH terms
Health Promotion, Mobile Applications

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