Development and validation of the user version of the Mobile application rating scale (uMARS)

Stoyanov, Stoyan R; Hides, Leanne; Kavanagh, David J; Wilson, Hollie

doi:10.2196/mhealth.5849

Cited by 872Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Development and validation of the user version of the Mobile application rating scale (uMARS)

Open access

Stoyanov, Stoyan R, Hides, Leanne, Kavanagh, David J, Wilson, Hollie·2016·JMIR mhealth and uhealth

DOI 10.2196/mhealth.5849PMC PMC4920963

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) provides a reliable method to assess the quality of mobile health (mHealth) apps. However, training and expertise in mHealth and the relevant health field is required to administer it. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development and reliability testing of an end-user version of the MARS (uMARS). METHODS: The MARS was simplified and piloted with 13 young people to create the uMARS. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the uMARS was then examined in a second sample of 164 young people participating in a randomized controlled trial of a mHealth app. App ratings were collected using the uMARS at 1-, 3,- and 6-month follow up. RESULTS: The uMARS had excellent internal consistency (alpha = .90), with high individual alphas for all subscales. The total score and subscales had good test-retest reliability over both 1-2 months and 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The uMARS is a simple tool that can be reliably used by end-users to assess the quality of mHealth apps.

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/mhealth.5849

Cites

14 of 14 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.

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 internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the uMARS total score and subscales were shown as excellent in the RCT (Cronbach's alpha = 0.90).
“The internal consistency and test–retest reliability of the uMARS total score and subscales were shown as excellent in the RCT (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90) (46).”
From Improving mental well-being in psychocardiology—a feasibility trial for a non-blended web application as a brief metacognitive-based intervention in cardiovascular disease patients (2023) · cites this paper as [46]
Study 2 reports excellent internal consistency for the total score (Cronbach’s alpha = .90) and high internal consistency for its subscales in the RCT sample. The Discussion describes test–retest reliability as good for the total score and fair to good for the subscales, not excellent; alpha = .90 does not measure test–retest reliability. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Usability and acceptability of the technology were assessed using qualitative methods and standard measures, such as the survey based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, the Mobile Application Rating Scale, and the System Usability and After-Scenario Questionnaire.
“The usability and acceptability of the technology were assessed using qualitative methods and standard measures, such as the survey based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology [27], the Mobile Application Rating Scale [28], and the System Usability and After-Scenario Questionnaire [29].”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [28]
Both MARS and uMARS included some usability components such as engagement, functionality, and information quality, but they were not specifically designed to study usability with end users.
“Both MARS and uMARS included some usability components such as engagement, functionality, and information quality; however, they were not specifically designed to study usability with end users.”
From The mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ): Development and Validation Study (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
A simpler user version of MARS (uMARS) was created for the general population for the same purpose.
“Shortly thereafter, a simpler user version of MARS (uMARS) was created for the general population for the same purpose [37].”
From The mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ): Development and Validation Study (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
The uMARS demonstrates good internal reliability (α = 0.90), and the subscales demonstrate moderate reliability (α = 0.71 and 0.80).
“Overall, the uMARS demonstrates good internal reliability (α = 0.90), and the subscales demonstrate moderate reliability (α = 0.71 and 0.80) (Stoyanov et al., 2016).”
From Pilot study of a well-being app to support New Zealand young people during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021) · cites this paper as Stoyanov et al., 2016

Self-check

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

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

Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 23,433 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) [16-18] were used, as they provide weighted values of rater agreement and assess proximity rather than equality of ratings.”
A new readability yardstick.
Flesch, R. (1948) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0057532 · Cited by 5,391 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Readability of the MARS and the draft uMARS was then determined using the Flesch Reading Ease test [12,13], which has a score range of 0-100, with higher scores indicating easier readability.”
QUANTIFYING TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY USING THE INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT AND THE SEM
Weir, J. P. (2005) · The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · doi:10.1519/15184.1 · Cited by 4,864 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) [16-18] were used, as they provide weighted values of rater agreement and assess proximity rather than equality of ratings.”
Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial
Hallgren, K. A. (2012) · Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology · doi:10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023 · Cited by 3,884 · cited 3× · see citing works
“The uMARS total score demonstrated good [16] levels of ICC of .”
Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, Jr., Robert P., R., Richard L., C., & Brad, S. (1975) · doi:10.21236/ada006655 · Cited by 3,497 · see citing works
Mobile app rating scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps
Stoyanov, S. R., Hides, L., Kavanagh, D. J., Zelenko, O., Tjondronegoro, D., & Mani, M. (2015) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.3422 · Cited by 2,233 · cited 2× · see citing works
“In response to these issues, we developed the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) to provide researchers, professionals, and clinicians with a brief tool for classifying and assessing the quality of mHealth apps [11].”
Self-citation
The Effectiveness of Mobile-Health Technologies to Improve Health Care Service Delivery Processes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Free, C., Phillips, G., Watson, L., Galli, L., Felix, L., Edwards, P., Patel, V., & Haines, A. (2013) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001363 · Cited by 1,187 · see citing works
Guided Internet-based vs. face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Andersson, G., Cuijpers, P., Carlbring, P., Riper, H., & Hedman, E. (2014) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20151 · Cited by 1,077 · cited 1× · see citing works
“There are currently more than 165,000 mHealth apps (free and paid) publicly available [1], yet the accuracy of the health information contained in these apps is not scrutinized by regulatory bodies [2], which could compromise user health and safety [3-5].”
Mapping mHealth research: a decade of evolution
Fiordelli, M., Diviani, N., & Schulz, P. J. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2430 · Cited by 570 · cited 1× · see citing works
“While meta-analytic studies have demonstrated the efficacy of mHealth apps targeting physical activity and weight loss [6,7], the evidence base for other types of mHealth apps is poor at best [8-10].”
Review and evaluation of mindfulness-based iPhone apps
Mani, M., Kavanagh, D. J., Hides, L., & Stoyanov, S. R. (2015) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.4328 · Cited by 495 · see citing works
Increasing Physical Activity With Mobile Devices: A Meta-Analysis
Fanning, J., Mullen, S. P., & McAuley, E. (2012) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2171 · Cited by 457 · cited 1× · see citing works
“While meta-analytic studies have demonstrated the efficacy of mHealth apps targeting physical activity and weight loss [6,7], the evidence base for other types of mHealth apps is poor at best [8-10].”
Towards a Framework for Evaluating Mobile Mental Health Apps
Chan, S., Torous, J., Hinton, L., & Yellowlees, P. (2015) · Telemedicine and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2015.0002 · Cited by 163 · cited 1× · see citing works
“There are currently more than 165,000 mHealth apps (free and paid) publicly available [1], yet the accuracy of the health information contained in these apps is not scrutinized by regulatory bodies [2], which could compromise user health and safety [3-5].”
How behavioral science can advance digital health
Pagoto, S., & Bennett, G. G. (2013) · Translational Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s13142-013-0234-z · Cited by 145 · cited 1× · see citing works
“There are currently more than 165,000 mHealth apps (free and paid) publicly available [1], yet the accuracy of the health information contained in these apps is not scrutinized by regulatory bodies [2], which could compromise user health and safety [3-5].”
Feature-level analysis of a novel smartphone application for smoking cessation
Heffner, J. L., Vilardaga, R., Mercer, L. D., Kientz, J. A., & Bricker, J. B. (2015) · The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse · doi:10.3109/00952990.2014.977486 · Cited by 103 · cited 1× · see citing works
“While meta-analytic studies have demonstrated the efficacy of mHealth apps targeting physical activity and weight loss [6,7], the evidence base for other types of mHealth apps is poor at best [8-10].”

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

[4]Su W A preliminary survey of knowledge discovery on smartphone applications (apps): Principles, techniques and research directions for e-health arXiv preprint arXiv 2014 06 26 International Conference on Complex Medical Engineering June 26-29, 2014 Taipei, Taiwan 14077314

Sorted by citations

Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review
Borghouts, J., Eikey, E., Mark, G., De Leon, C., Schueller, S. M., Schneider, M., Stadnick, N., Zheng, K., Mukamel, D., & Sorkin, D. H. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/24387 · Cited by 1,069 · see citing works
The mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ): Development and Validation Study
Zhou, L., Bao, J., Setiawan, I. M. A., Saptono, A., & Parmanto, B. (2019) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/11500 · Cited by 675 · see citing works
“Shortly thereafter, a simpler user version of MARS (uMARS) was created for the general population for the same purpose [37].”
The Handbook of Behavior Change
Hagger, M. S., Cameron, L. D., Hamilton, K., Hankonen, N. E., & Lintunen, T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318 · Cited by 420 · see citing works
Consumer Mobile Health Apps: Current State, Barriers, and Future Directions
Kao, C., & Liebovitz, D. M. (2017) · PM&R · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.02.018 · Cited by 350 · see citing works
Changing Behavior Using the Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.002 · Cited by 303 · see citing works
Validation of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS)
Terhorst, Y., Philippi, P., Sander, L., Schultchen, D., Paganini, S., Bardus, M., Santo, K., Knitza, J., Machado, G. C., Schöeppe, S., et al. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241480 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
“Also using a multi-method approaches, for example by integrating alternative assessments like the user version of the MARS [60] or the ENLIGHT [28] could lead to a more comprehensive assessment of the quality of MHA.”
Engagement in mobile phone app for self-monitoring of emotional wellbeing predicts changes in mental health: MoodPrism
Bakker, D., & Rickard, N. (2018) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.016 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of Digital Health Applications: Scoping Review
Giebel, G. D., Speckemeier, C., Abels, C., Plescher, F., Börchers, K., Wasem, J., Blase, N., & Neusser, S. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/43808 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Criteria for assessing the quality of mHealth apps: a systematic review
Nouri, R., R Niakan Kalhori, S., Ghazisaeedi, M., Marchand, G., & Yasini, M. (2018) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocy050 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
““Design” was found in 9 different articles(30,31,33,34,36,38,48,49,52) “Information/ Content” (using different terms) observed in 15 studies (38,41,42,44,45,47,49,51,52)“Usability” in 14 articles, 49,52 “Functionality” in 7 studies,(31,33,34,38,43,49,50) “Ethical Issues” in 1 study,(42) “Security and Privacy” in 8 art…”
The most used questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction, usability, acceptance, and quality outcomes of mobile health
Hajesmaeel‐Gohari, S., Khordastan, F., Fatehi, F., Samzadeh, H. R., & Bahaadinbeigy, K. (2022) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-022-01764-2 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
The German Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G): Development and Validation Study
Messner, E.-M., Terhorst, Y., Barke, A., Baumeister, H., Stoyanov, S., Hides, L., Kavanagh, D., Pryss, R., Sander, L., & Probst, T. (2020) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/14479 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Self-citation
The role of mobile health technologies in allergy care: An EAACI position paper
Matricardi, P. M., Dramburg, S., Álvarez‐Perea, A., Antolín‐Amérigo, D., Apfelbacher, C., Atanasković‐Marković, M., Berger, U. E., Blaiss, M. S., Blank, S., Boni, E., et al. (2019) · Allergy · doi:10.1111/all.13953 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Changing Behavior Using the Model of Action Phases
Keller, L., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2020) · The Handbook of Behavior Change · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.006 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Assessing therapeutic alliance in the context of mhealth interventions for mental health problems: development of the Mobile Agnew Relationship Measure (mARM) questionnaire
Berry, K., Salter, A., Morris, R., James, S., & Bucci, S. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8252 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
“For example, the user Mobile Application Rating Scale ([18]) assesses factors such as an app’s customization, interactivity, ease of use, and the quality and credibility of information.”
A design and evaluation framework for digital health interventions
Kowatsch, T., Otto, L., Harperink, S., Cotti, A., & Schlieter, H. (2019) · it - Information Technology · doi:10.1515/itit-2019-0019 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
“[45, 79, 81] 41, 12.4%”
Influential
Mobile health app usability and quality rating scales: a systematic review
Azad‐Khaneghah, P., Neubauer, N., Cruz, A. M., & Liu, L. (2020) · Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2019.1701103 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
“…Health Care Apps Evaluation Tool [73], Royal College of Physicians ’ Health Informatics Unit checklist [74], Organisation for the Review of Care and Health Applications-24 Question Assessment (ORCHA-24) [75], and Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) [76 – 92] and its user ’ s version U-MARS [93].”
Smartphone-Based Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion: Scoping Review of the Evidence Over the Last 10 Years
Domin, A., Spruijt‐Metz, D., Theisen, D., Ouzzahra, Y., & Vögele, C. (2021) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/24308 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Changing Behavior Using the Health Action Process Approach
Schwarzer, R., & Hamilton, K. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.007 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
The Emerging Imperative for a Consensus Approach Toward the Rating and Clinical Recommendation of Mental Health Apps
Torous, J., Firth, J., Huckvale, K., Larsen, M. E., Cosco, T. D., Carney, R., Chan, S., Pratap, A., Yellowlees, P., Wykes, T., et al. (2018) · Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/nmd.0000000000000864 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Consumer Mobile Apps for Potential Drug-Drug Interaction Check: Systematic Review and Content Analysis Using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS)
Kim, B. Y., Sharafoddini, A., Tran, N., Wen, E. Y., & Lee, J. (2018) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.8613 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
“The popularity of MARS led to the further development of an Italian version [36] and an end-user version for nonresearchers [37].”
Efficacy of Zemedy, a Mobile Digital Therapeutic for the Self-management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial
Hunt, M. G., Miguez, S. M., Dukas, B., Onwude, O., & White, S. J. (2021) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/26152 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Mental health apps in a college setting: openness, usage, and attitudes.
Kern, A., Hong, V., Song, J., Lipson, S., & Eisenberg, D. (2018) · mHealth · doi:10.21037/mhealth.2018.06.01 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
“Further research and collaboration are needed to evaluate these tools and optimize their integration into the broader field of behavioral health care (9-11).”
Computer-Assisted Cognitive-Behavior Therapy and Mobile Apps for Depression and Anxiety
Wright, J. H., Mishkind, M., Eells, T. D., & Chan, S. R. (2019) · Current Psychiatry Reports · doi:10.1007/s11920-019-1031-2 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Review of Use and Integration of Mobile Apps Into Psychiatric Treatments
Chan, S. R., Godwin, H. T., González, Á. D. S., Yellowlees, P., & Hilty, D. M. (2017) · Current Psychiatry Reports · doi:10.1007/s11920-017-0848-9 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Mobile health tools for the management of chronic respiratory diseases
Sleurs, K., Seys, S., Bousquet, J., Fokkens, W. J., Gorris, S., Pugin, B., & Hellings, P. W. (2019) · Allergy · doi:10.1111/all.13720 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
“A scoring system, so‐called the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), has however been developed(39) and recently validated but targets the end user.(40) This scoring system is insufficient to determine the overall quality, including clinical proof of efficacy.”
Tools for Evaluating the Content, Efficacy, and Usability of Mobile Health Apps According to the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments: Systematic Review
Muro-Culebras, A., Escriche-Escuder, A., Martín‐Martín, J., Roldán‐Jiménez, C., De-Torres, I., Ruiz‐Muñoz, M., González‐Sánchez, M., Mayoral, F., Biró, A., Tang, W. J., et al. (2020) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/15433 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
“The MARS [29] uses uMARS as the user version [31].”
Associations of Health App Use and Perceived Effectiveness in People With Cardiovascular Diseases and Diabetes: Population-Based Survey
Ernsting, C., Stühmann, L. M., Dombrowski, S. U., Voigt‐Antons, J., Kuhlmey, A., & Gellert, P. R. (2019) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/12179 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
ACCU3RATE: A mobile health application rating scale based on user reviews
Biswas, M., Tania, M. H., Kaiser, M., Kabir, R., Mahmud, M., & Kemal, A. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258050 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Malay Version of the mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (M-MAUQ): Translation, Adaptation, and Validation Study
Mustafa, N., Safii, N. S., Jaffar, A., Sani, N. S., Mohamad, M. I., Abd Rahman, A. H., & Mohd Sidik, S. (2021) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/24457 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
“The mobile app rating scale and the user version of the mobile app rating scale include some usability components to assess the quality of mobile apps [16,17].”
Evaluating Plant Disease Detection Mobile Applications: Quality and Limitations
Siddiqua, A., Kabir, M. A., Ferdous, T., Ali, I. B., & Weston, L. A. (2022) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy12081869 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Patients’ Experiences of Using a Consumer mHealth App for Self-Management of Heart Failure: Mixed-Methods Study
Woods, L. S., Duff, J. S., Roehrer, E., Walker, K., & Cummings, E. A. (2019) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/13009 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
“Since data collection, the authors are aware of a user version of the MARS called uMARS [28], which would have suited this participant sample more specifically as health care consumers.”
Scoping review: Development and assessment of evaluation frameworks of mobile health apps for recommendations to consumers
Hensher, M., Cooper, P., Dona, S. W. A., Angeles, M. R., Nguyen, D., Heynsbergh, N., Chatterton, M. L., & Peeters, A. (2021) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocab041 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
“Future frameworks can be validated and improved by undertaking pilot testing with randomly selected apps and statistical analyzes such as interrater reliability or internal consistency.(44) Other limitations of the currently available frameworks also show the need for improvement and the potential for development of a…”
Parenting apps review: in search of good quality apps
Virani, A., Duffett‐Leger, L., & Letourneau, N. L. (2019) · mHealth · doi:10.21037/mhealth.2019.08.10 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
“Health care professionals can encourage parents to look for the privacy policy of apps to ensure that personal information is not shared with the third party; to check for the source of information or Health On the Net (HON) seal, to verify the quality of health information; and to appraise apps using app evaluation t…”
Wearable Sensor-Based Exercise Biofeedback for Orthopaedic Rehabilitation: A Mixed Methods User Evaluation of a Prototype System
Argent, R., Slevin, P., Bevilacqua, A., Neligan, M. C., Daly, A., & Caulfield, B. (2019) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s19020432 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Design and testing of a mobile health application rating tool
Levine, D. M., Co, Z., Newmark, L. P., Groisser, A. R., Holmgren, A. J., Haas, J. S., & Bates, D. W. (2020) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0268-9 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Evaluation of Mobile Health Applications to Track Patient-Reported Outcomes for Oncology Patients: A Systematic Review
Lu, D. J., Girgis, M., David, J. M., Chung, E. M., Atkins, K. M., & Kamrava, M. (2021) · Advances in Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.adro.2020.09.016 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
The EMPOWER blended digital intervention for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in Scotland and Australia
Gumley, A. I., Bradstreet, S., Ainsworth, J. D., Allan, S., Álvarez‐Jiménez, M., Aucott, L. S., Birchwood, M. J., Briggs, A. H., Bucci, S., Cotton, S., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(22)00103-1 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Smartphone-Based Physical Activity Telecoaching in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Mixed-Methods Study on Patient Experiences and Lessons for Implementation
Loeckx, M., Rabinovich, R., Demeyer, H., Louvaris, Z., Tanner, R., Rubio, N., Frei, A. L., de Jong, C., Gimeno‐Santos, E., Rodrigues, F. M. M., et al. (2018) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.9774 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Augmenting Mental Health in Primary Care: A 1-Year Study of Deploying Smartphone Apps in a Multi-site Primary Care/Behavioral Health Integration Program
Hoffman, L., Benedetto, E., Huang, H. Y., Grossman, E., Kaluma, D., Mann, Z., & Torous, J. B. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00094 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
“Drawing on feedback from our Patient Partner Lead, staff member expertise, papers on app evaluation (24), and elements of the user version of the Mobile Apps Rating System (U-MARS) (25), the workgroup next narrowed the list to nine apps and drafted a process for introducing the apps through the Primary Care Behavioral…”
Habit Interventions
Gardner, B., Rebar, A. L., & Lally, P. J. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.041 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Assessing the Quality of Mobile Apps Used by Occupational Therapists: Evaluation Using the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale
LeBeau, K., Huey, L. G., & Hart, M. W. (2019) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/13019 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Development and Pilot Evaluation of Smartphone-Delivered Cognitive Behavior Therapy Strategies for Mood- and Anxiety-Related Problems: MoodMission
Bakker, D., Kazantzis, N., Rickwood, D., & Rickard, N. S. (2018) · Cognitive and Behavioral Practice · doi:10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.07.002 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of the Insomnia Coach Mobile App to Assess Its Feasibility, Acceptability, and Potential Efficacy
Kuhn, E. R., Miller, K. E., Puran, D., Wielgosz, J., YorkWilliams, S. L., Owen, J. E., Jaworski, B. K., Hallenbeck, H. W., McCaslin, S. E., & Taylor, K. L. (2021) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2021.11.003 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Smartphone apps for tracking food consumption and recommendations: Evaluating artificial intelligence-based functionalities, features and quality of current apps
Samad, S., Ahmed, F., Naher, S., Kabir, M. A., Das, A., Amin, S., & Islam, S. M. S. (2022) · Intelligent Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.iswa.2022.200103 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
“, 2015), uMARS – end- user version of MARS (Stoyanov et al., 2016), FinMARS – MARS for financial apps (Huebner et al.”
Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review
Patel, B., & Thind, A. (2020) · JMIR Perioperative Medicine · doi:10.2196/19099 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
The Effects of Gamification and Oral Self-Care on Oral Hygiene in Children: Systematic Search in App Stores and Evaluation of Apps
Fijačko, N., Gosak, L., Cilar, L., Novšak, A., Creber, R. M., Skok, P., & Štiglic, G. (2020) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/16365 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Changing Behavior Using Social Cognitive Theory
Łuszczyńska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.003 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Evaluation of mobile phone applications to support medication adherence and symptom management in oncology patients
Jupp, J. C. Y., Sultani, H., Cooper, C. A., Peterson, K. A., & Truong, T. H. (2018) · Pediatric Blood & Cancer · doi:10.1002/pbc.27278 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Drafting the Aboriginal and Islander Mental Health Initiative for Youth (AIMhi-Y) App: Results of a formative mixed methods study
Povey, J., Sweet, M., Nagel, T., Mills, P. P. J. R., Stassi, C. P., Puruntatameri, A. M. A., Lowell, A., Shand, F., & Dingwall, K. (2020) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2020.100318 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Asthma and Allergy Mobile Apps in 2018
Kagen, S., & Garland, A. (2019) · Current Allergy and Asthma Reports · doi:10.1007/s11882-019-0840-z · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Quality of a Supporting Mobile App for Rheumatic Patients: Patient-Based Assessment Using the User Version of the Mobile Application Scale (uMARS)
Lambrecht, A., Vuillerme, N., Raab, C., Simón, D., Meßner, E.-M., Hagen, M., Bayat, S., Kleyer, A., Aubourg, T., Schett, G. A., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.715345 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Assessing Apps for Patients with Genitourinary Tumors Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS): Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis
Amor-García, M. Á., Collado-Borrell, R., Escudero-Vilaplana, V., Melgarejo-Ortuño, A., Herranz-Alonso, A., Arranz Arija, J. Á., & Sanjurjo-Sáez, M. (2020) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/17609 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
“MARS is limited by its subjectivity [13,21].”
Mobile Apps for Dental Caries Prevention: Systematic Search and Quality Evaluation
Chen, R., Santo, K., Wong, G. K. M., Sohn, W., Spallek, H., Chow, C. K., & Irving, M. J. (2020) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/19958 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
“This scale provides a standardized approach with 19 objective items and provides appraisal across 4 subscales: engagement, functionality, esthetics, and information quality [38,40].”
Digital Health Equity and Tailored Health Care Service for People With Disability: User-Centered Design and Usability Study
Ha, S., Ho, S. H., Bae, Y.-H., Lee, M., Kim, J. H., Kim, J. H., & Lee, J. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/50029 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
“In the research by Stoyanov et al [43], the reported Cronbach α value was .78; in this study, it was .743.”
‘Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator’ mobile applications (Apps): a systematic review and scoring using the validated user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS)
Adam, A., Hellig, J. C., Perera, M., Bolton, D. M., & Lawrentschuk, N. (2017) · World Journal of Urology · doi:10.1007/s00345-017-2150-1 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Association Between User Engagement of a Mobile Health App for Gout and Improvements in Self-Care Behaviors: Randomized Controlled Trial
Serlachius, A. S., Schache, K., Kieser, A., Arroll, B., Petrie, K. J., & Dalbeth, N. (2019) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/15021 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Self-Efficacy Interventions
Warner, L. M., & French, D. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.032 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Assessment of the Quality of Mobile Applications (Apps) for Management of Low Back Pain Using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS)
Escriche-Escuder, A., De-Torres, I., Roldán‐Jiménez, C., Martín‐Martín, J., Muro-Culebras, A., González‐Sánchez, M., Ruiz‐Muñoz, M., Mayoral, F., Biró, A., Tang, W. J., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17249209 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Designing and Implementing the MySusCof App—A Mobile App to Support Food Waste Reduction
Haas, R., Aşan, H., Doğan, O., Michalek, C. R., Karaca, O., & Bulut, Z. A. (2022) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods11152222 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Nutrition-Related Mobile Apps in the China App Store: Assessment of Functionality and Quality
Li, Y., Ding, J., Wang, Y., Tang, C., & Zhang, P. (2019) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/13261 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Changing Behavior Using Ecological Models
Salmon, J., Hesketh, K. D., Arundell, L., Downing, K. L., & Biddle, S. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.017 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Understanding users’ perspectives on mobile apps for anxiety management
Balaskas, A., Schueller, S. M., Cox, A. L., & Doherty, G. J. (2022) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2022.854263 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Efficacy and outcomes of a mobile app targeting alcohol use in young people
Hides, L. M., Quinn, C. A., Cockshaw, W. D., Stoyanov, S. R., Zelenko, O., Johnson, D. M., Tjondronegoro, D., Quek, L., & Kavanagh, D. J. (2017) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.09.020 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
The Arabic Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale: Development and Validation Study
Bardus, M., Awada, N., Ghandour, L. A., Fares, E.-J., Gherbal, T., Al-Zanati, T., & Stoyanov, S. R. (2019) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/16956 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“A simplified version for end users (user version of the MARS, uMARS) has also been developed [39]; it includes the same domains of the MARS tool, using simplified language and omitting items that would require rater expertise, so that it can be used without training and by laypersons or end users…”
Digital Medication Adherence Support: Could Healthcare Providers Recommend Mobile Health Apps?
Backes, C., Moyano, C. E., Rimaud, C., Bienvenu, C., & Schneider, M. P. (2021) · Frontiers in Medical Technology · doi:10.3389/fmedt.2020.616242 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
“Through elimination of duplicates and terms with little relation to medication adherence, a total of 17 English and 65 French search terms have been identiﬁed for the search of medication adherence apps ( Appendix 6 ).”
Influential
Identifying an effective mobile health application for the self-management of allergic rhinitis and asthma in Australia
Tan, R. H., Cvetkovski, B., Kritikos, V. S., O’Hehir, R. E., Lourenço, O. M., Bousquet, J., & Bosnic-Anticevich, S. Z. (2019) · Journal of Asthma · doi:10.1080/02770903.2019.1640728 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Integrating Behavioral Science With Mobile (mHealth) Technology to Optimize Health Behavior Change Interventions
Walsh, J. C., & Groarke, J. M. (2019) · European Psychologist · doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000351 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Changing Behavior Using Self-Determination Theory
Hagger, M. S., Hankonen, N. E., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Ryan, R. M. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.008 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of mHealth Apps From the Perspective of Patients: Focus Group and Interview Study
Giebel, G. D., Abels, C., Plescher, F., Speckemeier, C., Schrader, N. F., Börchers, K., Wasem, J., Neusser, S., & Blase, N. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/49982 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Assessing the Quality of Mobile Phone Apps for Weight Management: User-Centered Study With Employees From a Lebanese University
Bardus, M., Ali, A., Demachkieh, F., & Hamadeh, G. (2019) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.9836 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
“Unfortunately, the uMARS source study does not provide solutions in case of poor internal consistency or low agreement [43], and other studies employing uMARS did not report such issues [54,55].”
Influential
Early Signs Monitoring to Prevent Relapse in Psychosis and Promote Well-Being, Engagement, and Recovery: Protocol for a Feasibility Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial Harnessing Mobile Phone Technology Blended With Peer Support
Gumley, A. I., Bradstreet, S., Ainsworth, J. D., Allan, S., Álvarez‐Jiménez, M., Beattie, L., Bell, I. H., Birchwood, M. J., Briggs, A. H., Bucci, S., et al. (2020) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/15058 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Systematic evaluation of content and quality of English and German pain apps in European app stores
Terhorst, Y., Meßner, E.-M., Schultchen, D., Paganini, S., Portenhauser, A. A., Eder, A.-S., Bauer, M., Papenhoff, M. C., Baumeister, H., & Sander, L. (2021) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2021.100376 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
A Mobile Intervention for Self-Efficacious and Goal-Directed Smartphone Use in the General Population: Randomized Controlled Trial
Keller, J., Roitzheim, C., Radtke, T., Schenkel, K., & Schwarzer, R. (2021) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/26397 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Review of the Content and Quality of Mobile Applications About Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias
Choi, S. K., Yelton, B., Ezeanya, V. K., Kannaley, K., & Friedman, D. B. (2018) · Journal of Applied Gerontology · doi:10.1177/0733464818790187 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
“MARS is a recently developed tool, used to evaluate the quality of health-related apps, and its psychometric properties have been reported as good (Stoyanov et al., 2016).”
Promoting Health via mHealth Applications Using a French Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale: Adaptation and Validation Study
Saliasi, I., Martinon, P., Darlington, E., Smentek, C., Tardivo, D., Bourgeois, D. M., Dussart, C., Carrouel, F., & Fraticelli, L. (2021) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/30480 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
A Personalized Approach Bias Modification Smartphone App (“SWiPE”) to Reduce Alcohol Use: Open-Label Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Effectiveness Study
Manning, V., Piercy, H., Garfield, J. B. B., Clark, S. G., Andrabi, M. N., & Lubman, D. I. (2021) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/31353 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Mobile Applications in Mood Disorders and Mental Health: Systematic Search in Apple App Store and Google Play Store and Review of the Literature
Eis, S., Solà-Morales, O., Duarte‐Díaz, A., Vidal‐Alaball, J., Perestelo‐Pérez, L., Robles, N., & Carrión, C. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19042186 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Pilot study of a well-being app to support New Zealand young people during the COVID-19 pandemic
Serlachius, A., Boggiss, A., Lim, D., Schache, K., Wallace-Boyd, K., Brenton-Peters, J., Buttenshaw, E., Chadd, S., Cavadino, A., Cao, N., et al. (2021) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2021.100464 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
“User engagement was assessed by the App Subjective Quality sub-scale and the Perceived Impact subscale of the end-user version of the uMARS measure (Stoyanov et al., 2016).”
Influential
A Personalized, Transdiagnostic Smartphone Intervention (Mello) Targeting Repetitive Negative Thinking in Young People With Depression and Anxiety: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bell, I. H., Arnold, C., Gilbertson, T., D’Alfonso, S., Castagnini, E., Chen, N. A., Nicholas, J., O’Sullivan, S., Valentine, L., & Álvarez‐Jiménez, M. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/47860 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“Acceptability was assessed with the subscales (range 1-5, with higher scores indicating more positive evaluations) of the Mobile Application Rating Scale–User version [52].”
Influential
The feasibility of an m-health educational programme (m2Hear) to improve outcomes in first-time hearing aid users
Ferguson, M., Maidment, D. W., Gomez, R., Coulson, N., & Wharrad, H. J. (2020) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.1080/14992027.2020.1825839 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“The Mobile Application Rating Scale: user version (uMARS) (Stoyanov et al. 2016) is a questionnaire that assesses the quality 4 M.”
Spanish adaptation and validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS)
Martín‐Payo, R., Carrasco-Santos, S., Cuesta, M., Stoyan, S., González-Méndez, X., & Fernández-Álvarez, M. D. M. (2021) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocab216 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Development of a Mobile App for Self-Care Against COVID-19 Using the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) Model: Methodological Study
Saeidnia, H. R., Kozak, M., Ausloos, M., Herţeliu, C., Mohammadzadeh, Z., Ghorbi, A., Karajizadeh, M., & Hassanzadeh, M. (2022) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/39718 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Digital transformation evaluation of telehealth using convergence, maturity, and adoption
Mishra, V., & Sharma, M. G. (2022) · Health Policy and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2022.100684 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Planning and Implementation Intention Interventions
Rhodes, R. E., Grant, S. J., & de Bruijn, G. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.039 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Attitudes and Persuasive Communication Interventions
Hamilton, K., & Johnson, B. T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.031 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Changing Behavior Using Habit Theory
Orbell, S., & Verplanken, B. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.013 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
A Digital Mental Health Intervention (Inuka) for Common Mental Health Disorders in Zimbabwean Adults in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Feasibility and Acceptability Pilot Study
Dambi, J. M., Norman, C., Doukani, A., Potgieter, S., Turner, J., Musesengwa, R., Verhey, R., & Chibanda, D. (2022) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/37968 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Menstrual Tracking Mobile App Review by Consumers and Health Care Providers: Quality Evaluations Study
Ko, S., Lee, J., An, D., & Woo, H. (2022) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/40921 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
“The uMARS was subsequently developed, based on the MARS, to allow consumers to evaluate the quality of mHealth apps. uMARS has excellent internal consistency [25].”
Changing Behavior: A Theory- and Evidence-Based Approach
Hagger, M. S., Cameron, L. D., Hamilton, K., Hankonen, N. E., & Lintunen, T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.001 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Development and Evaluation of a Smartphone-Based Chatbot Coach to Facilitate a Balanced Lifestyle in Individuals With Headaches (BalanceUP App): Randomized Controlled Trial
Ulrich, S., Gantenbein, A. R., Zuber, V., Von Wyl, A., Kowatsch, T., & Künzli, H. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/50132 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
“We assessed the acceptance of BalanceUP with a slightly modified and translated version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (uMARS) [103] assessing engagement (eg, entertainment, interest, customization, interactivity, and target group of the app); information (eg, quality of information, quantity of…”
A Chatbot-Delivered Stress Management Coaching for Students (MISHA App): Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Hauser-Ulrich, S., Lienhard, N., Künzli, H., & Kowatsch, T. (2024) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/54945 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
“We evaluated the feasibility and acceptance of MISHA using the user version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (uMARS) [86] after the intervention.”
Gamifying Breastfeeding for Fathers: Process Evaluation of the Milk Man Mobile App
White, B. K., Giglia, R. C., White, J. A., Dhaliwal, S. S., Burns, S. K., & Scott, J. A. (2019) · JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · doi:10.2196/12157 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Social Identity Interventions
Tarrant, M., Haslam, C., Carter, M., Calitri, R., & Haslam, S. A. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.044 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Supervised Exercise Therapy Using Mobile Health Technology in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Paldán, K., Steinmetz, M., Simanovski, J., Rammos, C., Ullrich, G., Jánosi, R. A., Moebus, S., Rassaf, T., & Lortz, J. (2021) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/24214 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Digital smartphone intervention to recognise and manage early warning signs in schizophrenia to prevent relapse: the EMPOWER feasibility cluster RCT
Gumley, A. I., Bradstreet, S., Ainsworth, J. D., Allan, S., Álvarez‐Jiménez, M., Birchwood, M. J., Briggs, A. H., Bucci, S., Cotton, S., Engel, L., et al. (2022) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hlze0479 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Conducting a systematic review and evaluation of commercially available mobile applications (apps) on a health-related topic: the TECH approach and a step-by-step methodological guide
Gasteiger, N., Dowding, D., Norman, G., McGarrigle, L., Eost‐Telling, C., Jones, D. J., Vercell, A., Ali, S. M., & O’Connor, S. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073283 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
“Nevertheless, Stoyanov et al 41 reported that the objective measures correlated well with the subjective measures.”
Mhealth interventions to improve health and quality of life related outcomes for informal dementia caregivers: A scoping review
Faieta, J. M., Sheehan, J., & DiGiovine, C. P. (2020) · Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/10400435.2020.1829174 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Existing Mobile Phone Apps for Self-Care Management of People With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias: Systematic Analysis
Guo, Y., Yang, F., Hu, F., Li, W., Ruggiano, N., & Lee, H. Y. (2019) · JMIR Aging · doi:10.2196/15290 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Determining Priorities in the Aboriginal and Islander Mental Health Initiative for Youth App Second Phase Participatory Design Project: Qualitative Study and Narrative Literature Review
Povey, J., Sweet, M., Nagel, T., Lowell, A., Shand, F., Vigona, J., & Dingwall, K. M. (2022) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/28342 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Changing Behavior Using Integrated Theories
Hagger, M. S., & Hamilton, K. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.015 · Cited by 39 · see citing works

Mobile Application Rating Scale: User Version (uMARS) (appears in: Development and Validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS).) Copyright: Creative Commons License.
Stoyanov, S. R., Hides, L. M., Kavanagh, D. J., & Wilson, H. (2016) · Open Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis)
Development and validation of the Japanese version of the uMARS (user version of the mobile app rating system)
Shinohara, Y., Yamamoto, K., Ito, M., Sakata, M., Koizumi, S., Hashisako, M., Sato, M., Wannous, M., Stoyanov, S. R., Nakajima, J., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104809 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
French adaptation and validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS-F) (Preprint)Preprint
Besnier, M., Tessier, F., & Blanchard, C. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.66516
Response to “Development and Validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS)”
Baptista, S. N., Oldenburg, B. F., & O'Neil, A. E. (2017) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.6419 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS): A new tool for assessing the quality of health apps
Hides, L. M., Kavanagh, D. J., Stoyanov, S. R., Zelenko, O., Tjondronegoro, D., & Mani, M. (2014) · QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) · Cited by 2 · see citing works

Authors: Stoyanov, S. R., Hides, L., Kavanagh, D. J., & Wilson, H.
Affiliations: Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author: Hides, Leanne
ORCID: Stoyanov, Stoyan R
Hides, Leanne
Kavanagh, David J
Wilson, Hollie
Venue: JMIR mhealth and uhealth
Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
Published: 2016-06-10
Volume: 4
Issue: 2
Pages: e72
ISSN: 2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.5849
PMC: PMC4920963
OpenAlex: W2415928823
Cited by: 872
References: 14
Citations by year: 2026: 95 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 138 · 2023: 108 · 2022: 107 · 2021: 89 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 3
FWCI: 59.52
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: gold
doi.org
Licence: cc-by
Locations: JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
PubMed (publishedVersion)
QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Funders: Queensland University of Technology
Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre
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 App Rating Scale, Umar, mobile health apps, app quality assessment, youth, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, scale development, app ratings

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

Development and validation of the user version of the Mobile application rating scale (uMARS)

Abstract

Integrity signals

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Self-check

Cites

Cited by

Related

Record

About these checks