The Karma system is currently undergoing maintenance (Monday, January 29, 2018).
The maintenance period has been extended to 8PM EST.

Karma Credits will not be available for redeeming during maintenance.
Advertisement

Currently accepted at: JMIR Publications Inc.

Date Submitted: Apr 9, 2018
Open Peer Review Period: Apr 11, 2018 - Jul 23, 2018
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

This paper has been accepted and is currently in production.

It will appear shortly on 10.2196/10718

The final accepted version (not copyedited yet) is in this tab.

Measuring the quality of mobile applications for the management of pain: a standardised review using the mobile app rating scale (MARS)

  • Alejandro Salazar; 
  • Helena de Sola; 
  • Inmaculada Failde; 
  • Jose Antonio Moral-Munoz

ABSTRACT

Background:

Chronic pain is a major health issue requiring an approach that not only considers medication, but also many other factors included in the Bio-Psycho-Social model of pain. New technologies, such as mobile applications, are tools to address these factors, although in many cases they lack proven quality or are not based on scientific evidence, so it is necessary to review and measure their quality.

Objective:

The aim is to review and measure the quality of mobile applications for the management of pain using the mobile app rating scale (MARS).

Methods:

This review included 18 pain related mobile apps from App Store and Android Market. The MARS was administered to measure their quality. We list the scores (of each section and the final score) of every app and we report the mean score (and standard deviation) for an overall vision of the quality of the pain related apps. We compare the section scores between the groups defined according to the tertiles via ANOVA analyses, after checking for normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test).

Results:

The global quality ranged from 1.74 (worst app) to 4.35 (best app). The 18 apps, as a whole, obtained an average score of 3.17 (SD=0.75). The best rated sections were “Functionality” (Mean=3.92;SD=0.72), “Aesthetics” (Mean=3.3;SD=1.05), and “Engagement” (Mean=2.87;SD=1.14), while the worst rated were “App specific” (Mean=2.48;SD=1), “Information” (Mean=2.52;SD=0.82), and “App subjective quality” (Mean=2.68;SD=1.22). The main differences between tertiles were found on “app subjective quality”, “Engagement”, “Aesthetics”, and “App specific”.

Conclusions:

Current pain related apps are of a certain quality, mainly regarding their technical aspects, although they fail to offer information and have an impact on the user. Most apps are not based on scientific evidence, have not been rigorously tested, and the confidentiality of the information collected is not guaranteed. Future apps would need to improve these aspects and exploit the capabilities of current devices.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Salazar A, de Sola H, Failde I, Moral-Munoz JA

Measuring the quality of mobile applications for the management of pain: a standardised review using the mobile app rating scale (MARS)

JMIR mHealth and uHealth. (forthcoming/in press)

DOI: 10.2196/10718

Current Preprint Settings

(as selected by the authors)
1)
Allow access to Preprints when not published (under review or accepted) for
(a) Open peer-review purposes.
(b) Logged-in Users only.
(c) Anybody, anytime.
(d) Nobody.
2)
When a final version is published in a JMIR journal
(a) Allow download.
(b) Show abstract only.
3)
Allow access to Preprints when marked as rejected or withdrawn or lapsed
(a) Logged-in Users only.
(b) Anybody, anytime.
(c) Nobody.

The review period has ended. Preprint is no longer downloadable.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.