18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Quality of a Supporting Mobile App for Rheumatic Patients: Patient-Based Assessment Using the User Version of the Mobile Application Scale (uMARS)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction: Mobile applications promise to improve current health care. However, current mobile app quality ratings are mostly physician-based. The aim of this study was (1) to assess the quality of the self-management app Rheuma Auszeit using the validated uMARS (User Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale) app quality assessment tool and (2) to evaluate the association between uMARS scores and patients' characteristics.

          Materials and Methods: Consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and spondyloarthritis were seen at the rheumatology clinic at university hospital Erlangen, Germany. They were asked to test Rheuma Auszeit, evaluate its quality using uMARS and complete a paper-based survey evaluating the individual preferences, attitudes and ehealth literacy. The association between uMARS scores and patients' characteristics was further explored.

          Results: Between December 2018 and January 2019, a total of 126 patients evaluated Rheuma Auszeit using uMARS and filled out the paper-based survey. The median uMARS score was 3.9, IQR 0.7. Functionality was the domain with the highest rating (median 4.8, IQR 0.8), followed by aesthetics (median 4.0, IQR 0.7), information (median 3.5, IQR 0.8), and engagement (median 3.2, IQR 1.0). Subjective quality was average (median 3.0, IQR 1.0). The lowest scoring individual item was customization with a median of 2.5/5. Lower functionality scores were reported among older female rheumatic patients ( P < 0.004). Older male rheumatic patients reported a higher subjective quality score ( P < 0.024). Perceived disease activity and disease duration did not significantly correlate with any uMARS subdomain scores. eHealth literacy significantly correlated with functionality uMARS subdomain ratings (Rho = 0.18; P < 0.042). Preferred time of app usage significantly correlated with engagement (Rho = 0.20; P < 0.024), functionality (Rho = 0.19; P < 0.029), total uMARS score (Rho = 0.21; P < 0.017) and subjective quality score (Rho = 0.21; P < 0.017). The vast majority of rheumatic patients would consider recommending Rheuma Auszeit to other patients (117/126; 92.9%).

          Conclusion: Rheuma Auszeit was well-accepted by German patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondyloarthritis. Lacking customization could lead to low app compliance and should be improved. Lower functionality scores among older female rheumatic patients highlight the need for patient education. The study underlines the potential and feasibility of therapeutic complementary digital solutions in rheumatology.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Mobile App Rating Scale: A New Tool for Assessing the Quality of Health Mobile Apps

          Background The use of mobile apps for health and well being promotion has grown exponentially in recent years. Yet, there is currently no app-quality assessment tool beyond “star”-ratings. Objective The objective of this study was to develop a reliable, multidimensional measure for trialling, classifying, and rating the quality of mobile health apps. Methods A literature search was conducted to identify articles containing explicit Web or app quality rating criteria published between January 2000 and January 2013. Existing criteria for the assessment of app quality were categorized by an expert panel to develop the new Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) subscales, items, descriptors, and anchors. There were sixty well being apps that were randomly selected using an iTunes search for MARS rating. There were ten that were used to pilot the rating procedure, and the remaining 50 provided data on interrater reliability. Results There were 372 explicit criteria for assessing Web or app quality that were extracted from 25 published papers, conference proceedings, and Internet resources. There were five broad categories of criteria that were identified including four objective quality scales: engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality; and one subjective quality scale; which were refined into the 23-item MARS. The MARS demonstrated excellent internal consistency (alpha = .90) and interrater reliability intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = .79). Conclusions The MARS is a simple, objective, and reliable tool for classifying and assessing the quality of mobile health apps. It can also be used to provide a checklist for the design and development of new high quality health apps.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale

            Background Electronic health resources are helpful only when people are able to use them, yet there remain few tools available to assess consumers’ capacity for engaging in eHealth. Over 40% of US and Canadian adults have low basic literacy levels, suggesting that eHealth resources are likely to be inaccessible to large segments of the population. Using information technology for health requires eHealth literacy—the ability to read, use computers, search for information, understand health information, and put it into context. The eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) was designed (1) to assess consumers’ perceived skills at using information technology for health and (2) to aid in determining the fit between eHealth programs and consumers. Objectives The eHEALS is an 8-item measure of eHealth literacy developed to measure consumers’ combined knowledge, comfort, and perceived skills at finding, evaluating, and applying electronic health information to health problems. The objective of the study was to psychometrically evaluate the properties of the eHEALS within a population context. A youth population was chosen as the focus for the initial development primarily because they have high levels of eHealth use and familiarity with information technology tools. Methods Data were collected at baseline, post-intervention, and 3- and 6-month follow-up using control group data as part of a single session, randomized intervention trial evaluating Web-based eHealth programs. Scale reliability was tested using item analysis for internal consistency (coefficient alpha) and test-retest reliability estimates. Principal components factor analysis was used to determine the theoretical fit of the measures with the data. Results A total of 664 participants (370 boys; 294 girls) aged 13 to 21 (mean = 14.95; SD = 1.24) completed the eHEALS at four time points over 6 months. Item analysis was performed on the 8-item scale at baseline, producing a tight fitting scale with α = .88. Item-scale correlations ranged from r = .51 to .76. Test-retest reliability showed modest stability over time from baseline to 6-month follow-up (r = .68 to .40). Principal components analysis produced a single factor solution (56% of variance). Factor loadings ranged from .60 to .84 among the 8 items. Conclusions The eHEALS reliably and consistently captures the eHealth literacy concept in repeated administrations, showing promise as tool for assessing consumer comfort and skill in using information technology for health. Within a clinical environment, the eHEALS has the potential to serve as a means of identifying those who may or may not benefit from referrals to an eHealth intervention or resource. Further research needs to examine the applicability of the eHEALS to other populations and settings while exploring the relationship between eHealth literacy and health care outcomes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Development and Validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS)

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Med (Lausanne)
                Front Med (Lausanne)
                Front. Med.
                Frontiers in Medicine
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-858X
                22 July 2021
                2021
                : 8
                : 715345
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Internal Medicine 3 - Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen , Erlangen, Germany
                [2] 2Université Grenoble Alpes, AGEIS , Grenoble, France
                [3] 3LabCom Telecom4Health, Univ. Grenoble Alpes & Orange Labs , Grenoble, France
                [4] 4Institut Universitaire de France , Paris, France
                [5] 5Deutsches Zentrum für Immuntherapie, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen , Erlangen, Germany
                [6] 6Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, University of Ulm , Ulm, Germany
                Author notes

                Edited by: Valentin Sebastian Schäfer, University Hospital Bonn, Germany

                Reviewed by: Meghna Jani, The University of Manchester, United Kingdom; Ettore Silvagni, University of Ferrara, Italy

                *Correspondence: Johannes Knitza johannes.knitza@ 123456uk-erlangen.de

                This article was submitted to Rheumatology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Medicine

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work and share last authorship

                Article
                10.3389/fmed.2021.715345
                8339429
                34368202
                77985391-8a63-42ec-add1-1f47ce152596
                Copyright © 2021 Lambrecht, Vuillerme, Raab, Simon, Messner, Hagen, Bayat, Kleyer, Aubourg, Schett, Hueber and Knitza.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 26 May 2021
                : 28 June 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 29, Pages: 8, Words: 5194
                Categories
                Medicine
                Original Research

                mobile applications (apps),mobile app rating scale,rheumatology,end-users,mobile health

                Comments

                Comment on this article