Mobile health app usability and quality rating scales: a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose

To review the rating scales used to evaluate usability and quality of mobile health applications, and to compare their purpose, content, and intended target users (i.e., patients, caregivers, or researchers).

Material and Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the literature in accordance with the PRISMA statement on Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, IEEE Explore databases, as well as a review of the grey literature to identify rating scales used to evaluate usability and quality of mobile health applications (m-health apps), between January 1, 2000 and July 31, 2018. Two researchers screened the titles and abstracts of articles that met inclusion criteria, and retrieved usability and quality rating scales from the articles.

Results

We identified 24 usability scales and 25 quality rating scales in 87 peer-reviewed articles. We identified only one quality rating scale designed for non-expert users (i.e., patients or caregivers). None of the studies used a theoretical framework for app evaluation to support the scales. The validity of existing quality rating scales is yet to be investigated.

Conclusion

Existing usability and quality rating scales are targeted at professionals, not end users who are patients or caregivers. Rating scales that are usable by all end-users would make mobile health apps accessible and meaningful to consumers.

Implications for rehabilitation

• The number of mobile health applications on app stores that can be used for rehabilitation is increasing.

• Most healthcare providers lack the training to identify m-health apps with high quality to be used in rehabilitation.

• This study has reviewed the current rating scales that can help clinicians and care providers rate the quality of m-health apps and identify the ones that are most appropriate for their practice.

Keywords:

• Mobile applications
• quality evaluation
• rating scales
• E-health
• mobile health
• systematic review

Acknowledgements

This systematic review forms the basis for a doctoral dissertation by the first author. The first author received funding support in the form of scholarships from the Alberta Association on Gerontology (Edmonton Chapter Student Award), Alberta Association on Gerontology (Provincial Student Award), and Alberta College of Occupational Therapists (Centenary Doctoral Scholarship). All first three authors received funding support from Aging Gracefully across Environments using Technology to Support Wellness, Engagement, and Long Life (AGE-WELL) NCE Inc. under Grant AW CRP 2015-WP6.1.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.