CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 154Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsUsability and User Interface Design

Measuring the Quality of Mobile Apps for the Management of Pain: Systematic Search and Evaluation Using the Mobile App Rating Scale

Open access
Salazar, Alejandro, de Sola, Helena, Failde, Inmaculada, Moral-Munoz, Jose Antonio·2018·JMIR mHealth and uHealth
DOI 10.2196/10718PMC PMC6231783

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a major health issue requiring an approach that not only considers medication, but also many other factors included in the biopsychosocial model of pain. New technologies, such as mobile apps, are tools to address these factors, although in many cases they lack proven quality or are not based on scientific evidence, so it is necessary to review and measure their quality. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to evaluate and measure the quality of mobile apps for the management of pain using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). METHODS: This study included 18 pain-related mobile apps from the App Store and Play Store. The MARS was administered to measure their quality. We list the scores (of each section and the final score) of every app and we report the mean score (and standard deviation) for an overall vision of the quality of the pain-related apps. We compare the section scores between the groups defined according to the tertiles via analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal-Wallis test, depending on the normality of the distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test). RESULTS: The global quality ranged from 1.74 (worst app) to 4.35 (best app). Overall, the 18 apps obtained a mean score of 3.17 (SD 0.75). The best-rated sections were functionality (mean 3.92, SD 0.72), esthetics (mean 3.29, SD 1.05), and engagement (mean 2.87, SD 1.14), whereas the worst rated were app specific (mean 2.48, SD 1.00), information (mean 2.52, SD 0.82), and app subjective quality (mean 2.68, SD 1.22). The main differences between tertiles were found on app subjective quality, engagement, esthetics, and app specific. CONCLUSIONS: Current pain-related apps are of a certain quality mainly regarding their technical aspects, although they fail to offer information and have an impact on the user. Most apps are not based on scientific evidence, have not been rigorously tested, and the confidentiality of the information collected is not guaranteed. Future apps would need to improve these aspects and exploit the capabilities of current devices.

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 · 10.2196/10718

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • MARS has been diversely and widely used in evaluating smartphone-based health apps, including pain management, weight management, diabetes management, and rheumatology apps.

    “In addition, MARS has been diversely and widely used in evaluating smartphone-based health apps, for instance, pain management apps [31], weight management apps [32], diabetes management apps [33], and rheumatology apps [34,35].”

    From Smartphone and mobile health apps for tinnitus: Systematic identification, analysis, and assessment (2020) · cites this paper as [31]

  • Very few pain-related eHealth programs are developed with the involvement of health-care professionals and actual end users (patients with chronic pain).

    “systematic literature reviews examining the development and use of pain-related eHealth apps indicate that very few of these programs are developed with the involvement of health-care professionals and actual end users (ie, patients with chronic pain), and only a few existing pain-related apps appear to be based on a theoretical and evidence-based rationale [31,32].”

    From Digital Self-Management in Support of Patients Living With Chronic Pain: Feasibility Pilot Study (2020) · cites this paper as [31]

  • Only a few existing pain-related apps appear to be based on a theoretical and evidence-based rationale.

    “systematic literature reviews examining the development and use of pain-related eHealth apps indicate that very few of these programs are developed with the involvement of health-care professionals and actual end users (ie, patients with chronic pain), and only a few existing pain-related apps appear to be based on a theoretical and evidence-based rationale [31,32].”

    From Digital Self-Management in Support of Patients Living With Chronic Pain: Feasibility Pilot Study (2020) · cites this paper as [31]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Salazar, A., de Sola, H., Failde, I., & Moral-Munoz, J. A.
Affiliations
Universidad de Cádiz (ES)
ORCID
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2018-10-25
Volume
6
Issue
10
Pages
e10718
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/10718
PMC
PMC6231783
OpenAlex
W2883454068
Cited by
154
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 1
FWCI
24.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • RODIN (Universidad de Cádiz) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RISalud Institutional Health Repository of Andalucía (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
mobile application, chronic pain management, app quality, Mobile App Rating Scale, biopsychosocial model of pain, user engagement, app aesthetics, data privacy

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