CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 142Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth, Technology, Consumer BehaviorDigital Mental Health Interventions

A Systematic Review of Quality Assessment Methods for Smartphone Health Apps

BinDhim, Nasser F., Hawkey, Alexandra, Trevena, Lyndal·2015·Telemedicine and e-Health
DOI 10.1089/tmj.2014.0088
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction: There are large numbers of health-related applications (apps) available in various app stores for many smartphone devices. Consequently, increasing numbers of articles are attempting to evaluate the content and the quality of health-related smartphone apps for specific health conditions. The aim of this article is to describe and summarize the methodologies used to determine the quality of health-related apps targeting health consumers and to propose a set of criteria for evaluating the quality of smartphone health-related apps. Materials and Methods: In 2013, literature searches were performed using Medline and CINAHL, and we included all articles that had the aim of assessing the quality of health-related smartphone apps. The assessment method used in these studies was summarized and scored using a set of quality criteria developed for this study. Results: From 606 articles generated by the search, only 10 met the inclusion criteria. Based on our quality criteria, the mean score was 5.05 out of 8 (range, 2–7). Eighty percent of the studies did not identify the app store country in which the apps were found. Forty percent of the studies did not clearly mention whether they only had assessed the app description or had downloaded the app content for evaluation. Sixty percent of the studies did not provide a list of the apps they had evaluated. Overall, we identified six evaluation methodologies used to assess the quality of health-related apps described in Results. Conclusions: This article provides a summary of currently used methods for assessing the quality of smartphone health-related apps and proposes a set of criteria to enable future studies to consistently review health-related app quality in a standardized manner.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/tmj.2014.0088

Cites

18 of 18 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

Related

Authors
BinDhim, N. F., Hawkey, A., & Trevena, L.
Affiliations
  • Saudi Electronic University (SA)
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
BinDhim, Nasser F.
ORCID
Venue
Telemedicine and e-Health
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2015-02
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
97-104
ISSN
  • 1530-5627 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-3669
DOI
10.1089/tmj.2014.0088
OpenAlex
W2133455974
Cited by
142
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Telemedicine Journal and e-Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
mobile health apps, app quality assessment, quality standards, evaluation methodology, App Store, health care consumers, mobile health
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Humans, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Telemedicine, 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