CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 231Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Criteria for assessing the quality of mHealth apps: a systematic review

Open access
Nouri, Rasool, R Niakan Kalhori, Sharareh, Ghazisaeedi, Marjan, Marchand, Guillaume, Yasini, Mobin·2018·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
DOI 10.1093/jamia/ocy050PMC PMC7646896
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: Review the existing studies including an assessment tool/method to assess the quality of mHealth apps; extract their criteria; and provide a classification of the collected criteria. Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA statement, a literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBase, ISI and Scopus for English language citations published from January 1, 2008 to December 22, 2016 for studies including tools or methods for quality assessment of mHealth apps. Two researchers screened the titles and abstracts of all retrieved citations against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full text of relevant papers was then individually examined by the same researchers. A senior researcher resolved eventual disagreements and confirmed the relevance of all included papers. The authors, date of publication, subject fields of target mHealth apps, development method, and assessment criteria were extracted from each paper. The extracted assessment criteria were then reviewed, compared, and classified by an expert panel of two medical informatics specialists and two health information management specialists. Results: Twenty-three papers were included in the review. Thirty-eight main classes of assessment criteria were identified. These were reorganized by expert panel into 7 main classes (Design, Information/Content, Usability, Functionality, Ethical Issues, Security and Privacy, and User-perceived value) with 37 sub-classes of criteria. Conclusions: There is a wide heterogeneity in assessment criteria for mHealth apps. It is necessary to define the exact meanings and degree of distinctness of each criterion. This will help to improve the existing tools and may lead to achieve a better comprehensive mHealth app assessment tool.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jamia/ocy050

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 62 references

3 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bertini, 2008, Int J Mob Hum Comput Interact, 20
  2. Aitken, 2013, Patient Apps for Improved Healthcare: from Novelty to Mainstream

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–230 of 230

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Nouri, R., R Niakan Kalhori, S., Ghazisaeedi, M., Marchand, G., & Yasini, M.
Affiliations
  • Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
  • Health Information Management Department, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Research and Development Department, DMD Santé, Paris, France
Corresponding author
Ghazisaeedi, Marjan
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2018-05-16
Volume
25
Issue
8
Pages
1089-1098
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
DOI
10.1093/jamia/ocy050
PMC
PMC7646896
OpenAlex
W2803669305
Cited by
231
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 2
FWCI
3.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deputy of Education of Tehran University of Medical Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
mobile health apps, quality assessment, evaluation criteria, quality assessment tools, usability, privacy and security, ethical considerations, mobile application design, app functionality, content quality
MeSH terms
Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, 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