4.6 Review

A Systematic Review of Smartphone Applications Available for Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID19) and the Assessment of their Quality Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS)

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SYSTEMS
卷 44, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10916-020-01633-3

关键词

Smartphone application; COVID-19; Pandemic; Contact tracing; Mobile application rating scale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The global impact of COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rapid development and utilization of mobile health applications. These are addressing the unmet needs of healthcare and public health system including contact tracing, health information dissemination, symptom checking and providing tools for training healthcare providers. Here we provide an overview of mobile applications being currently utilized for COVID-19 and their assessment using the Mobile Application Rating Scale. We performed a systematic review of the literature and mobile platforms to assess mobile applications currently utilized for COVID-19, and a quality assessment of these applications using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) for overall quality, Engagement, Functionality, Aesthetics, and Information. Finally, we provide an overview of the key salient features that should be included in mobile applications being developed for future use. Our search identified 63 apps that are currently being used for COVID-19. Of these, 25 were selected from the Google play store and Apple App store in India, and 19 each from the UK and US. 18 apps were developed for sharing up to date information on COVID-19, and 8 were used for contact tracing while 9 apps showed features of both. On MARS Scale, overall scores ranged from 2.4 to 4.8 with apps scoring high in areas of functionality and lower in Engagement. Future steps should involve developing and testing of mobile applications using assessment tools like the MARS scale and the study of their impact on health behaviours and outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据