Association Between the Characteristics of mHealth Apps and User Input During Development and Testing: Secondary Analysis of App Assessment Data.
digital health
mobile apps
mobile health
patient and public involvement
quality assessment
user involvement
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Nov 2023
22 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
03
03
2023
accepted:
11
07
2023
revised:
15
06
2023
medline:
23
11
2023
pubmed:
22
11
2023
entrez:
22
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
User involvement is increasingly acknowledged as a central part of health care innovation. However, meaningful user involvement during the development and testing of mobile health apps is often not fully realized. This study aims to examine in which areas user input is most prevalent and whether there is an association between user inclusion and compliance with best practices for mobile health apps. A secondary analysis was conducted on an assessment data set of 1595 health apps. The data set contained information on whether the apps had been developed or tested with user input and whether they followed best practices across several domains. Background information was also available regarding the apps' country of origin, targeted condition areas, subjective user ratings, download numbers, and risk (as per the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence Standards Framework [ESF]). Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Pearson chi-square analyses were applied to the data. User involvement was reported by 8.71% (139/1595) of apps for only the development phase, by 33.67% (537/1595) of apps for only the testing phase, by 21.88% (349/1595) of apps for both phases, and by 35.74% (570/1595) of apps for neither phase. The highest percentage of health apps with reported user input during development was observed in Denmark (19/24, 79%); in the condition areas of diabetes (38/79, 48%), cardiology (15/32, 47%), pain management (20/43, 47%), and oncology (25/54, 46%); and for high app risk (ESF tier 3a; 105/263, 39.9%). The highest percentage of health apps with reported user input during testing was observed in Belgium (10/11, 91%), Sweden (29/34, 85%), and France (13/16, 81%); in the condition areas of neurodiversity (42/52, 81%), respiratory health (58/76, 76%), cardiology (23/32, 72%), and diabetes (56/79, 71%); and for high app risk (ESF tier 3a; 176/263, 66.9%). Notably, apps that reported seeking user input during testing demonstrated significantly more downloads than those that did not (P=.008), and user inclusion was associated with better compliance with best practices in clinical assurance, data privacy, risk management, and user experience. The countries and condition areas in which the highest percentage of health apps with user involvement were observed tended to be those with higher digital maturity in health care and more funding availability, respectively. This suggests that there may be a trade-off between developers' willingness or ability to involve users and the need to meet challenges arising from infrastructure limitations and financial constraints. Moreover, the finding of a positive association between user inclusion and compliance with best practices indicates that, where no other guidance is available, users may benefit from prioritizing health apps developed with user input as the latter may be a proxy for broader app quality.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
User involvement is increasingly acknowledged as a central part of health care innovation. However, meaningful user involvement during the development and testing of mobile health apps is often not fully realized.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to examine in which areas user input is most prevalent and whether there is an association between user inclusion and compliance with best practices for mobile health apps.
METHODS
METHODS
A secondary analysis was conducted on an assessment data set of 1595 health apps. The data set contained information on whether the apps had been developed or tested with user input and whether they followed best practices across several domains. Background information was also available regarding the apps' country of origin, targeted condition areas, subjective user ratings, download numbers, and risk (as per the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence Standards Framework [ESF]). Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Pearson chi-square analyses were applied to the data.
RESULTS
RESULTS
User involvement was reported by 8.71% (139/1595) of apps for only the development phase, by 33.67% (537/1595) of apps for only the testing phase, by 21.88% (349/1595) of apps for both phases, and by 35.74% (570/1595) of apps for neither phase. The highest percentage of health apps with reported user input during development was observed in Denmark (19/24, 79%); in the condition areas of diabetes (38/79, 48%), cardiology (15/32, 47%), pain management (20/43, 47%), and oncology (25/54, 46%); and for high app risk (ESF tier 3a; 105/263, 39.9%). The highest percentage of health apps with reported user input during testing was observed in Belgium (10/11, 91%), Sweden (29/34, 85%), and France (13/16, 81%); in the condition areas of neurodiversity (42/52, 81%), respiratory health (58/76, 76%), cardiology (23/32, 72%), and diabetes (56/79, 71%); and for high app risk (ESF tier 3a; 176/263, 66.9%). Notably, apps that reported seeking user input during testing demonstrated significantly more downloads than those that did not (P=.008), and user inclusion was associated with better compliance with best practices in clinical assurance, data privacy, risk management, and user experience.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The countries and condition areas in which the highest percentage of health apps with user involvement were observed tended to be those with higher digital maturity in health care and more funding availability, respectively. This suggests that there may be a trade-off between developers' willingness or ability to involve users and the need to meet challenges arising from infrastructure limitations and financial constraints. Moreover, the finding of a positive association between user inclusion and compliance with best practices indicates that, where no other guidance is available, users may benefit from prioritizing health apps developed with user input as the latter may be a proxy for broader app quality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37991822
pii: v11i1e46937
doi: 10.2196/46937
pmc: PMC10701645
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e46937Informations de copyright
©Anna-Lena Frey, Rebecca Baines, Sophie Hunt, Rachael Kent, Tim Andrews, Simon Leigh. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 22.11.2023.
Références
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022 May 6;10(5):e33735
pubmed: 35522465
Res Involv Engagem. 2022 Nov 4;8(1):58
pubmed: 36333757
J Sleep Res. 2023 Feb;32(1):e13642
pubmed: 35624078
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Feb 1;27(2):330-340
pubmed: 31599936
Health Expect. 2022 Aug;25(4):1232-1245
pubmed: 35526274
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Jan;32(1):1-4
pubmed: 24288209
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Aug 29;7(8):e12983
pubmed: 31469081
Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Jun;22(6):754-6
pubmed: 25997375
Value Health. 2016 Sep - Oct;19(6):746-750
pubmed: 27712701
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Dec 14;20(12):e11491
pubmed: 30552077
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Mar 1;7(1):12
pubmed: 33648588
Empir Softw Eng. 2022;27(7):196
pubmed: 36246486
Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):1918-26
pubmed: 24813243
J Med Ethics. 2022 Jan;48(1):3-13
pubmed: 31719155
Health Expect. 2022 Jun;25(3):840-855
pubmed: 35174585
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Oct 11;7(1):73
pubmed: 34635179
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):785-801
pubmed: 31012259
BMJ. 2021 Jun 16;373:n1248
pubmed: 34135009
Psychiatr Serv. 2020 Nov 1;71(11):1114-1119
pubmed: 32664822
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2020 Jan 9;11(1):1701788
pubmed: 32002136
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Oct 26;7:543046
pubmed: 33195294
J Particip Med. 2019 Feb 22;11(1):e11474
pubmed: 33055069