The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development and Validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS)
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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 24,532 · cited 1×
“Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) [16-18] were used, as they provide weighted values of rater agreement and assess proximity rather than equality of ratings.”
Flesch, R. (1948) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0057532 · Cited by 5,391 · cited 1×
“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×
“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×
“The uMARS total score demonstrated good [16] levels of ICC of .”
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, Jr., Robert P., R., Richard L., C., & Brad, S. (1975) · doi:10.21236/ada006655 · Cited by 3,497
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×
“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-citationFree, 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
Andersson, G., Cuijpers, P., Carlbring, P., Riper, H., & Hedman, E. (2014) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20151 · Cited by 1,077 · cited 1×
“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×
“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
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- SuWA preliminary survey of knowledge discovery on smartphone applications (apps): Principles, techniques and research directions for e-healtharXiv preprint arXiv20140626International Conference on Complex Medical EngineeringJune 26-29, 2014Taipei, Taiwan14077314
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 801–870 of 870
Kang, B., Jung, M., Kim, Y.-S., Han, K., & Choi, K. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1707034
Salgado, P. D. O., Keenan, G. M., Chianca, T. C. M., de Carvalho, M. R., Sarkisian, B. C., Domingos, C. S., de Castro, A. A., de Souza, S. F., Boscarol, G. T., Tannure, M. C., et al. (2026) · CIN Computers Informatics Nursing · doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000001489
Yıldırım, Y. O., & Bayraktar, A. (2020) · DergiPark (Istanbul University)
A Chronic Pain Self-Management Mobile App (Dolodoc): Cross-Sectional Acceptability Study
Guebey, J., Gosetto, L., Rehberg, B., Lovis, C., Ehrler, F., & Molinard‐Chenu, A. (2026) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/77163
“Another limitation of the acceptability study is the assessment of tailored acceptability criteria, instead of a standard measurement instrument, such as the user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) [33].”
Sharpe, A., Chan, Y. H., & Saparamadu, A. A. D. N. S. (2026) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/48828
“…for expert evaluators to classify and assess general MHA quality, and uMARS, which targets general end users, pMARS fills a critical gap by capturing HCP-specific clinical usability and professional decision-making considerations that are not specifically addressed by existing tools [10,21].”
Carrillo, A., Falgueras, J., & Díaz-Mohedo, E. (2026) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/64787
“For example, the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) [11], its user version (uMARS) [12], System Usability Scale [13,14], and Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire [15].”
Brazeau, B. W., Cunningham, J. A., & Hodgins, D. C. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/83430 · Cited by 2
“User Feedback On the postintervention Qualtrics feedback survey, participants completed the user version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (uMARS), which assesses user perceptions of the intervention’s engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information quality, and subjective quality [48].”
InfluentialAttoe, C., Szekely, R., Vega, M. O., Browne, E., Thomas, R., Kwan, C. W. T., Altchouler, P., De, A., Hariharan, N., Clay, G., et al. (2026) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076261428307
“For example, frameworks such as the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) 35,36 or the Enlight Suite 37 set out comprehensive, multidimensional criteria for evaluating digital health apps.”
Falzarano, F. B., Greenfield, A., Mason, H., Bumbalova, K., Rojas, E., & Bumbalov, A. (2026) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/90244
“At follow-up, participants will complete the 20-item user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) [75], which evaluates app quality across 5 domains: engagement, functionality, esthetics, information, and subjective quality.”
Visualizing Asthma-Related Digital Health Data for Everyday Users
Zhang, A., & Mansoor, H. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata66926.2025.11401441
Mundo, W., Clark, M., Picazo, J. G., Portz, J. D., & Goldberg, E. M. (2026) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/acem.70261
“The study team created an interview guide (Appendix B) informed by prior research on end-user prototype testing, expertise of our investigator team (geriatrics, emergency medicine, social work, and digital health), and pilot interview feedback [23].”
Ziebart, M., Jaeger, V., Theurich, M. A., & Koletzko, B. V. (2026) · JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · doi:10.2196/78128
“All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=inadequate to 5=excellent) [24].”
Babbott, K. M., Ginsberg, K. H., Boggiss, A. L., McClintock, J. M., Hudson, C. O., Hofman, P. L., Paul, R. G., Cavadino, A., Thabrew, H., Jefferies, C., et al. (2026) · JMIR Diabetes · doi:10.2196/79896
“The Mobile Application Rating Scale seeks to assess the quality of mobile health interventions, while the uMARS (end-user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale) framework is an end-user version of this tool [21].”
Liu, B., Jin, Z., Wang, H., Zhang, H., Zhang, Z., Wang, H., Yang, Y., Zhai, Z., & Guo, Y. (2026) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076261430465
“The design quality of the mVTEA was evaluated via the Chinese version of the user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (C-uMARS), 29,30 and its usability was evaluated via the Chinese version of mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (C-MAUQ).”
Sakthi, K., Sankeshwari, R. M., Ankola, A. V., Roychowdhury, B., Santhosh, V. N., Dutta, D., Varghese, A. S., & Apoorva, S. R. (2026) · Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research · doi:10.1016/j.jobcr.2026.101454
“The third is technology transfer documentation 18 (In-vention disclosure and copyrights registration, etc.) and user-centred quality evaluation using heuristics and the User-Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) 19 and qualitative feedback on the final version.”
InfluentialEster, M., Gillespie, D. C., Dhiman, K., White, K. G., Sipley, M., Sait, D., Lee, A., Githumbi, R., Bhatti, N., Davidson, E., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.2196/preprints.97736
Skeva, R., Androulakis, E., Koraka, A., Fofila, M. E., Chatzea, V., & Sifaki-Pistolla, D. I. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16094173
Osorio, N. G., Vik, F. N., Hillesund, E. R., Helland, S. H., Love, P., Abel, M. H., Rutter, H., Wills, A. K., Helle, C., Bjørkkjær, T., et al. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/84277
“Nevertheless, using alternative validated measures such as the user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale [43], or the System Usability Scale [44], could have provided more valuable insights into aspects of intervention engagement, functionality, or perceived usability, particularly to…”
Hall, A. E., Nguyen, N. H., Argame, A. A., Patel, A. K., Hargrove, R., Khetpal, S., Cascavita, C. T., Nguyen, C., Rada, R. C., Tseng, C.-H., et al. (2026) · Journal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2026.04.029
Gómez, G. D. I., Roa, D. M. O., Valencia, H. G., & Zuluaga, Y. E. L. (2026) · Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos · doi:10.17151/rlee.2025.21.1.3
Conrad, A. M., Day, J. J., Tynan, R. J., Sampson, D. L., KAY‐LAMBKIN, F. J., Kelly, B. J., Wilson, R., Axelsson, E., Thornton, L. K., Skippen, P., et al. (2026) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-026-14552-9
“…to review the prototype and provide feedback during development (using questions adapted from the Mobile Application Rating scale (uMARS) [35] on a range of design and functionality features, including but not limited to: function (performance, ease of use, navigation), aesthetics…”
Wu, Y. J., Feng, Z. P., Fu, J., Yan, H., & Gao, F. (2026) · Perioperative Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13741-026-00692-3
Shah, L., Chua, J. Y. X., Aayisha, A., Goh, Y. S., Choolani, M., Eriksson, J. G., Chee, C. Y. I., Chong, S. C., Mathews, J., Lina Hsiu Kim, L. I. M., et al. (2026) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2026.104864
Dattilo, T. M., Robbertz, A. S., Denson, L. A., & Hommel, K. A. (2026) · Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition · doi:10.1002/jpn3.70473
Kim, M., Kim, H., Heo, J.-I., Lee, S., Lahcine, O. F., Lee, S., Kim, H., & Jung, D. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/78930
“It includes subscales for engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information, and subjective quality [57].”
Aboye, G. T., Gebremichael, E. H., Simegn, G. L., & Aerts, J. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/87110
“The uMARS is a validated tool with a 26-item measure that includes subscales to assess engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality of the app [36].”
Julià, A., Jaén, I., García‐Palacios, A., Pascual, J. C., Sintes, A., Lara, A., Méndez, I., Romero, S., Solerdelcoll, M., Puntí, J., et al. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.102006
Giménez, M. C., Jaén, I., Vega, D., Julià, A., López-Solá, M., Solé-Casals, J., Miralles, I., & García-Palacios, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1794576
“At the end of the second week, two more questionnaires were sent for the usability and quality assessment: the Spanish adaptation of the SUS (49, 50) and the Spanish adaptation of the uMARS (52, 53).”
Ma, K. K. Y., Chan, S. S., Wong, E. W. Y., Choi, O., Mo, F. Y. M., Shea, C. K., Ho, C., Leung, P. W. L., So, S. F., Bögels, S. M., et al. (2026) · JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · doi:10.2196/84224 · Cited by 1
“…immediately post intervention by the 10-item System Usability Scale (SUS-10) [44], assessing the usability of products and apps, and the 20-item User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) [45], measuring engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality of health apps.”
Lares-Michel, M., Housni, F. E., Nava, R. M. M., Joaquín, G. J. B., Flores, C. E. A., Contreras, C. J. P., & Villegas, J. R. E. (2026) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2026.108610
Oh, D., Choi, H. S., Mohr, D. C., & Na, H. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1830292
“Quality of the mobile program was assessed using the Korean version of the end-user Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) (25, 26), which evaluates the quality of mobile health apps.”
Mok, K. T., Chan, D., Ong, C., Chiew, M. H., Chua, M. C., Ngien, A., Michael, N., Gupta, V., Chan, J. K. Y., Yap, F., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1869210
“…using a printed questionnaire, which consisted of the modified User Experience Questionnaire-Key Performance Indicator (UEQ-KPI) (26) to assess perceived importance of key user experience dimensions and user version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (uMARS) (27) to evaluate the overall app quality.”
Zibaei, M., Raeesi, A., & Khajouei, R. (2026) · Epilepsy Research · doi:10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2026.107856
Gião, R. D. C., Rago, C. A. P., & Ferauche, T. M. Y. (2026) · doi:10.5753/sbcas.2026.21541
“A análise dessas dimensões revela enfoques distintos: enquanto o uMARS prioriza a experiência do usuário, o QRAMHe incorpora critérios técnicos e normativos de confiabilidade em sistemas de saúde [Stoyanov et al. 2016].”
InfluentialSong, Y., Deng, X., 胡婷, Feng, S., & Xing, L. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/80126
“However, its administration requires specialized training and expertise in mHealth and the relevant health field [21].”
Peng, X. C., Cao, R., Wang, P., Zheng, H., Li, Y., Wang, J., Huang, S., Lu, W., Hu, Y., Wang, J., et al. (2026) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076261464737
Cedro, T., Południewski, G., & Glinkowski, W. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16136469
McKay, S., Ng, C., Nicholas, J., Browne, V., Chinnery, G. L., Choi, I., Nation-Ingle, B., Allison, K., Perlow, E., Lamblin, M., et al. (2026) · Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior · doi:10.1111/sltb.70125
“…belongingness (INQ-15) (Bryan et al. 2012), emotion dysregulation (DERS-SF) (Kaufman et al. 2016), suicidal ideation (YSIS-3) (Hetrick et al. 2021), mental health literacy (MHLS-9) (Bjørnsen et al. 2024) and User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) (Stoyanov et al. 2016).”
Dorfman, C. S., Arthur, S. S., Shelby, R. A., Stalls, J. M., Arrato, N. A., Somers, T. J., Wu, Y., Thomas, S. M., Willis, M. W., Youssef, D., et al. (2026) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2026.108391
Padilla, M. A. M., Astudillo, L. M. C., Ramírez, A., & Calle, J. V. Q. (2026) · Revista Multidisciplinaria Investigación Contemporánea · doi:10.58995/redlic.rmic.v4.n4.a238
Bress, J. N., Schier, M. M., Mir, Z., Jaywant, A., Falk, A. E., Bennett, S. M., Sirey, J. A., & Gunning, F. M. (2026) · The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry Open Science Education and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.osep.2026.07.001
“Eleven prospective participants were evaluated, of whom 10 were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 57.4 [8.95] years; two participants ages 40–49, five ages 50–59, two ages 60–69, one age 70–79).”
InfluentialHato, T., Ishikawa, H., Todo, K., Harada, K., Yoshikawa, A., Fukuda, Y., & Schnall, R. (2026) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/90483
“Tools such as the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS/uMARS) [21,22], the mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ), and the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (Health-ITUES) [23] have been developed for mHealth-spe-cific applications.”
Luseno, W. K., Iritani, B. J., Gilbertson, A., Odongo, F. S., & Agot, I. (2026) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-026-05257-5
Sheybak, R., Samouei, R., Papi, A., & Nouri, R. (2026) · Journal of Research in Medical Sciences · doi:10.4103/jrms.jrms_131_25
“[16] In 2021, Martin‑Payo et al . validated the Spanish version of this tool by assessing the application related to covid 19 prevention.”
InfluentialKim, M. H., Choi, S., Moon, Y.-K., & Chung, K. (2026) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2026.100984
“Participants' app use experience was assessed using the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS; Stoyanov et al., 2016), a 26-item measure comprising five domains: engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information, and perceived impact.”
Perception–Adoption Gap of an AI Dietary Management App in Real-World Dining Settings: A Field Study
Mai, S., Xu, J., Hu, Z., Shan, C., Zhao, Y., Liu, H., Song, Q., & Zhu, Z. (2026) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu18162640
“…comprised seven questions, in which four questions were adapted from the Information Quality section in the end-user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale questionnaire [12], and the other three were designed to measure users’ perceptions of the app’s intended use in the nutrition field.”
Zambudio-Munuera, A., Polo, M. Á. A., García-Hidalgo, C., & Navarro, R. E. (2026) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2026.106676
Sühs, E., Atkins, L. A., Koeppen, L., Schmigalle, P., Scholz, C., Liegl, G., Pryss, R. C., Kraft, R., Vogel, C., Idrees, A. R., et al. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-110437
Shin, H., & Shin, M. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/103986
“…of use and 3 assessed perceived usefulness, with 1 intention-to-use item adapted from Davis [10]; 4 items assessed engagement based on O’Brien et al [19]; 3 items assessed design and accessibility based on Gomez-Hernandez et al [9]; and 1 recommendation item was adapted from Stoyanov et al [20].”
Lygouras, D., Tsinakos, A. A., Vadikolias, K., & Seimenis, I. (2026) · Digital Health and Innovation · doi:10.3390/dhi1010006
“Mobile-and app-rating tools such as the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) and its derivatives provide structured, multi-item quality ratings for health apps but were not designed around immersive hardware, motor-impaired populations, or head-mounted-display (HMD)- specific tolerability [17].”
Nephron Flow Lab: Vibe Coding a Visual Nephrology Learning App
Calderwood, I., & Bland, T. (2026) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti10090093
A pilot study of Orchid, a novel digital health intervention for reproductive health educationPreprint
Tursini, M. S., Stewart, C., Carr, H., Smith, J., Howe, A., & Hall, J. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10114534/v1
Castillo-Suárez, G. D., Mena, M., Proaños, N. J., Vergara-Ramirez, P., Galindo, C., Delgado, M. X. L., Barbosa, F. R., & Bustos, R. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15187191
“All domain scores are interpreted on the same 1–5 scale (1 = inadequate, 5 = excellent), and individual items may additionally be examined separately to identify specific strengths or weaknesses of the tool [30,31].”
Mapping quality-related evaluation domains of digital health services: A scoping review
Zaboli, R., Bahadori, M., & Mohamadi, S. (2026) · Health Policy and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2026.101320
Alonso-Olea, I., Gual-Montolio, P., Díaz-Sanahuja, L., Niño-Ruiz, L., Mira, A., Casteleyn, S., Granell, C., García‐Palacios, A., & Bretón-López, J. M. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2026-117124
“User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS): 104 The uMARS is an instrument designed to assess the quality of mobile health apps from the user’s perspective.”
Experiencia de usuario en m-health
Pico, L. E. A., & Sánchez, P. C. C. (2026) · doi:10.69740/ud.9786287926318.9786287926325
Emery, J. B., Matheson, L. N., Shaw, O., Mannan, N., Cota, M. R., Fu, A., Haight, T. J., & Brody, D. L. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.09.24.26363933
Martinquilla, M. V. R., Amin-Ong, A. J., & Cadiz, M. R. M. (2026) · Philippine Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.4103/pjog.pjog_42_26
Liu, P., Wang, F., & Yang, C. (2026) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/88896
Whīria moe: a pilot trial of the Sleep Ninja CBT-I app for adolescents in Aotearoa, New Zealand
Ludin, N. M., Challis, H., Pawley, M. M. D. M., Fortune, S., Warman, G. R., Galland, B. C., Werner‐Seidler, A., Hetrick, S. E., & Cargo, T. (2026) · Australasian Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/10398562261491672
Özgür, A. G., Engvall, A., Björelius, H., & Hammarlund, I. (2026) · Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3821402.3830151
Evaluation of mobile applications for personal finance management using the MARS scale
Nikiel, Ł., Patskevich, A., & Miłosz, M. (2026) · Journal of Computer Sciences Institute · doi:10.35784/jcsi.9721
Punjani, N. S., Hussain, A., Milne, L., Salami, O. O., Abdulai, A., Hirani, S. S., Wells, K., Logie, C. H., & Scott, S. D. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.113536
Zhang, Z., Liu, D., 고윤서, & Kim, T. (2026) · Journal of Digital Contents Society · doi:10.9728/dcs.2026.27.9.2585
O'Brien, H. L. (2026) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.70121
Weingarden, H. M., Jonathan, G., Hoeppner, S. S., Velazquez, S., Jacoby, R. J., Greenberg, J. L., Harrison, O., & Wilhelm, S. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/98129
“At posttreatment, participants were also asked to rate the app’s quality using the 26-item user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS [33]).”
Cogan, N. A., Kirk, A. F., Hodgson, W., Rodriguez, C. G., Whittaker, S., Archbold, H., McCluskey, R., Wilson, C., Milligan, L., Rasmussen, S. A., et al. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.115071
Metadata
- Authors
- Stoyanov, S. R., Hides, L., Kavanagh, D. J., & Wilson, H.
- Affiliations
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Hides, Leanne
- Venue
- JMIR mhealth and uhealth
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2016-06-10
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e72
- ISSN
- 2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
- 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
