ABSTRACT
Background. The number of mobile health applications is rapidly increasing, yet no reliable tool exists for occupational therapists and their clients to rate the quality of these apps. Purpose. To develop the Alberta Rating Index for Apps (ARIA). Methods. Through a sequential design in three phases, we developed a rating index for mobile health applications and examined its reliability and validity with 10 participants. Findings. The coefficients of reliability were 0.95 for occupational therapists, 0.60 for older adults, and 0.88 for adults with a mental health condition. ARIA's correlation with another scale used in app review studies, U-MARS, was low to moderate. Implications. ARIA showed a high inter-rater reliability in two of the three user groups. ARIA is comprehensive and includes criteria not captured by U-MARS, such as privacy and security. Further studies are warranted with diverse raters and health apps.
Subject(s)
Mobile Applications , Occupational Therapy , Telemedicine , Aged , Alberta , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , Telemedicine/methodsABSTRACT
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 rehabilitationThe 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.
Subject(s)
Mobile Applications , Telemedicine , Delivery of Health Care , HumansABSTRACT
Three of five persons with dementia will wander, raising concern as to how it can be managed effectively. Wander-management strategies comprise a range of interventions for different environments. Although technological interventions may help in the management of wandering, no review has exhaustively searched what types of high- and low-technological solutions are being used to reduce the risks of wandering. In this article, we perform a review of gray and scholarly literature that examines the range and extent of high- and low-tech strategies used to manage wandering behavior in persons with dementia. We conclude that although effectiveness of 49 interventions and usability of 13 interventions were clinically tested, most were evaluated in institutional or laboratory settings, few addressed ethical issues, and the overall level of scientific evidence from these outcomes was low. Based on this review, we provide guidelines and recommendations for future research in this field.
