CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 27Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth, Technology, Consumer BehaviorUsability and User Interface Design

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

mHealth Quality: A Process to Seal the Qualified Mobile Health Apps

Yasini Mobin, Beranger Jérôme, Desmarais Pierre, Perez Lucas, Marchand Guillaume·2016·Studies in Health Technology and Informatics
DOI 10.3233/978-1-61499-678-1-205
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A large number of mobile health applications (apps) are currently available with a variety of functionalities. The user ratings in the app stores seem not to be reliable to determine the quality of the apps. The traditional methods of evaluation are not suitable for fast paced nature of mobile technology. In this study, we propose a collaborative multidimensional scale to assess the quality of mHealth apps. During our process, the app quality is assessed in various aspects including medical reliability, legal consistency, ethical consistency, usability aspects, personal data privacy and IT security. A hypothetico-deductive approach was used in various working groups to define the audit criteria based on the various use cases that an app could provide. These criteria were then implemented into a web based self-administered questionnaires and the generation of automatic reports were considered. This method is on the one hand specific to each app because it allows to assess each health app according to its offered functionalities. On the other hand, this method is automatic, transferable to all apps and adapted to the dynamic nature of mobile technology.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/978-1-61499-678-1-205

Cites

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?

  • Only one study did not evaluate applications or related information but focused on the development of an evaluation tool.

    “Only one study did not evaluate applications or related information but focused on the development of an evaluation tool [82].”

    From Security and Privacy of mHealth Applications: A Scoping Review (2020) · cites this paper as [82]

  • Evaluation of security and privacy at the development stage included technical methods such as identifying transport security issues, security vulnerabilities, evaluating content, functionalities, and legal compliance.

    “Evaluation of security and privacy at this stage included technical methods such as identifying transport security issues of the data ows [57], security vulnerabilities of mHealth apps [51], or evaluating content [82], functionalities [2], and legal compliance of the interventions [65].”

    From Security and Privacy of mHealth Applications: A Scoping Review (2020) · cites this paper as [82]

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Mobin, Y., Jérôme, B., Pierre, D., Lucas, P., & Guillaume, M.
Venue
Studies in Health Technology and Informatics
Publisher
IOS Press
Published
2016
Volume
228
Pages
205-9
ISSN
0926-9630 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3233/978-1-61499-678-1-205
OpenAlex
W2508883129
Cited by
27
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
15.71
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Studies in health technology and informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
mobile health apps, app quality assessment, legal compliance, ethical consistency, usability, data privacy, cybersecurity, app ratings, self-administered questionnaire, automated reporting
MeSH terms
Confidentiality, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, User-Computer Interface, Reproducibility of Results, 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