3.8 Article

Characterisation and assessment of the most popular mobile apps designed for neck pain self-management: A systematic search in app stores

期刊

MUSCULOSKELETAL CARE
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 192-199

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/msc.1581

关键词

application; MARS; mHealth; mobile; neck pain

资金

  1. FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia within CINTESIS, RD Unit [UIDB/4255/2020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated commonly downloaded apps targeting neck pain, finding that these apps generally have acceptable quality, focus on exercise, but lack educational components. User ratings in app stores are not indicative of app quality.
Purpose: This study aimed to assess commonly downloaded apps targeting neck pain (NP) using the Mobile Apps Rating Scale (MARS), to characterise the interventions described in the apps and to correlate the ratings of quality retrieved from app stores against the ratings of quality assessed using MARS. Materials and methods: A systematic search was conducted at the Apple App Store, Google Play, Windows Phone Store and Huawei App Gallery. Mobile apps with 100 or more ratings, a user rating of 4 or higher and which were available for free were retrieved for assessment. Results: A total of 17 apps met the inclusion criteria. The mean user rating was 4.4 +/- 0.28, the mean MARS score was 4.0 +/- 0.58 and the correlation between user ratings and MARS total scores and subdomains varied between a maximum of 0.41 (p > 0.05) and a minimum of -0.11 (p > 0.05). All apps included exercise but only 5 (29%) included an educational component. Conclusions: The most downloaded apps on NP available for free in app stores are, generally, of acceptable quality as assessed by the MARS total score, target exercise, but fail to include an appropriate educational component. The user rating available in app stores is not an indicator of the quality of the apps. Therefore, health professionals should carefully assess the mobile apps before recommending them to the patients.

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

3.8
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