Cited by 69Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Developing a Theoretical Framework for Evaluating the Quality of mHealth Apps for Adolescent Users: A Systematic Review

Open access
Jeminiwa, Ruth N., Hohmann, Natalie S., Fox, Brent I.·2019·The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To assess adolescents' preferred mobile app features and to propose a framework for evaluating health-related mobile apps for adolescents. METHODS PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, HealthIT.gov , and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched in August 2017. Studies pertaining to app development, feasibility, or usability that reported preferred app features and rating criteria on mHealth (mobile health) apps intended for adolescents were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative synthesis was performed to develop themes reflecting best practices for evaluating the quality of mHealth apps for adolescents. Using a grounded theory approach, we constructed a theoretical framework of rating criteria that can be used to inform development of an evaluation tool for mHealth apps targeted to adolescents. RESULTS Thirteen articles were included. Most commonly preferred features include ability to track test results or self-management progress, connect to social media, and gain points or prizes through app gamification. Common rating criteria include degree of app customizability, ease of use, visual appeal, and interactivity. Five emerging dimensions were used in the theoretical framework: Technical Quality; Engagement; Support System; Autonomy; and Safety, Privacy, and Trust. CONCLUSIONS We found that adolescents prefer mHealth apps that are customizable, offer peer support through social media, sustain engagement via gamification, and support the ability to visualize health trends via simplified graphs. Findings may help in the development of mHealth apps that are preferred by adolescents, as well as the development of a quality evaluation tool for mHealth apps targeted to this population.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5863/1551-6776-24.4.254

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • 60% (6/10) of studies in this category focused on overall evaluation of mHealth apps, including quality assessment, review of official frameworks such as APA, and frameworks to support decision-making in choosing mHealth apps for research purposes.

    “Most of the studies in this category 60% (6/10) focused on overall evaluation of mHealth apps, including quality assessment [86], [89], review of of cial frameworks such as APA [5], and frameworks to support decision-making in choosing mHealth apps for research purposes [87].”
  • Providing a theoretical framework of rating criteria that can be used to inform development of an evaluation tool for mHealth apps was a common objective of the frameworks at the early stage.

    “Ensuring the security and privacy of sensitive medical data in health apps [85] or providing ''a theoretical framework of rating criteria'' that can be used to inform development of an evaluation tool for mHealth apps [86] were common objectives of the frameworks (Table 3, green colour).”
  • Some limitations concern the generalisability of findings due to specific healthcare settings and problem areas, patient populations, or categories of apps reviewed.

    “Some limitations concern the generalisability of ndings, which could be due to speci c healthcare settings and problem areas [5], patient populations included in the studies [86], or the categories of apps reviewed [88].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jeminiwa, R. N., Hohmann, N. S., & Fox, B. I.
Venue
The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Published
2019
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
254-269
ISSN
1551-6776 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2956703980
Cited by
69
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, adolescents, app quality assessment, theoretical framework, app features, gamification, social media, peer support, usability, engagement, trust and privacy, autonomy, self-management, grading criteria

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