Scoping review: Development and assessment of evaluation frameworks of mobile health apps for recommendations to consumers. (31st March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hensher, Martin; Cooper, Paul; Dona, Sithara Wanni Arachchige; Angeles, Mary Rose; Nguyen, Dieu; Heynsbergh, Natalie; Chatterton, Mary Lou; Peeters, Anna
• Is Part Of: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. Volume 28:Number 6(2021)
• Page Start: 1318
• Page End: 1329
• Publication Date: 2021-03-31
• Subjects: health apps -- evaluation framework -- scoring and scaling -- assessment criteria; Medical informatics -- Periodicals; Information Services -- Periodicals; Medical Informatics -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Informatique -- Périodiques; Informatica; Geneeskunde; Informatique médicale; Computer network resources; Electronic journals; 610.285
• DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocab041
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1067-5027

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: The study sought to review the different assessment items that have been used within existing health app evaluation frameworks aimed at individual, clinician, or organizational users, and to analyze the scoring and evaluation methods used in these frameworks. Materials and Methods: We searched multiple bibliographic databases and conducted backward searches of reference lists, using search terms that were synonyms of "health apps, " "evaluation, " and "frameworks." The review covered publications from 2011 to April 2020. Studies on health app evaluation frameworks and studies that elaborated on the scaling and scoring mechanisms applied in such frameworks were included. Results: Ten common domains were identified across general health app evaluation frameworks. A list of 430 assessment criteria was compiled across 97 identified studies. The most frequently used scaling mechanism was a 5-point Likert scale. Most studies have adopted summary statistics to generate the total scoring of each app, and the most popular approach taken was the calculation of mean or average scores. Other frameworks did not use any scaling or scoring mechanism and adopted criteria-based, pictorial, or descriptive approaches, or "threshold" filter. Discussion: There is wide variance in the approaches to evaluating health apps within published frameworks, and this variance leads to ongoing uncertainty in how to evaluate health apps. Conclusions: A new evaluation framework is needed that can integrate the full range of evaluative criteria within one structure, and provide summative guidance on health app rating, to support individual app users, clinicians, and health organizations in choosing or recommending the best health app.