Accepted for/Published in: JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Date Submitted: Jan 11, 2019
Date Accepted: Feb 10, 2019
Quality principles of app description texts and their significance in deciding to use health apps
ABSTRACT
Background:
Currently, there are no binding requirements for manufacturers prescribing which information must be included in the app descriptions of health apps.
Objective:
To investigate how medical students rate a selection of quality princi-ples, intended for usage decisions in the app context, and to establish whether or not the information presented in a sample of app descriptions is perceived as suffi-cient, in relation to facilitating an informed usage decision for each app.
Objective:
To investigate how medical students rate a selection of quality principles, intended for usage decisions in the app context, and to establish whether or not the information presented in a sample of app descriptions is perceived as sufficient, in relation to facilitating an informed usage decision for each app.
Methods:
123 students (mean age 24.2 years, sd=3.4) participating in a 6-week teaching module covering cardiology and pulmonology at the University of Göttingen (original enrollment 152 students, response rate 80.9%) were included. Students were asked to each read 3 store description texts of cardiological or pneumological apps and initially assess whether the descriptions sufficed for a usage decision. Subsequently, they were queried on their perception of the relevance of 9 pre-defined quality principles, formulated for usage decisions. An appraisal of whether the app description texts contained sufficient information to satisfy these quality principles followed. By means of 20 guiding questions, participants were then asked to identify relevant information (or a lack thereof) within the descriptions. A reassessment of whether or not the description texts sufficed for making a usage decision ensued. A total of 343 complete data sets were obtained.
Results:
The majority of the quality principles were described as "very important" and "important" for making a usage decision. When assessed via the predefined principles, students felt unable to identify sufficient information within the app de-scriptions in 68.8% (2144/3087) of cases. Notably, information regarding undesired effects (91.8%, 315/343), ethical soundness (90.1%, 309/343), measures taken to avert risks (89.2%, 306/343), conflicts of interest (88.3%, 303/343) and the location of data storage (87.8%, 301/343) was lacking. Following participants' engagement with the quality principles, statistically significant changes in their assessment of whether or not the app descriptions sufficed for a usage decision can be seen (McNemar-Bowker test (3) = 45.803919, P<0.0001, Cohen's g = 0.295). In 34.1% (117/343), the assessment was revised. About three quarters of changed assessments were seen more critically (76.9%, 90/117). Whilst initially 70% (240/343) had been considered "sufficient", this rate was reduced to 54.2% (186/343) in the second assessment.
Conclusions:
In a considerable number of app descriptions, participants were unable to locate the information necessary for making an informed usage decision. Participants' sensitization to the quality principles led to changes in their assessment of app descriptions as a tool for usage decisions. Better transparency in app descriptions released by manufacturers and the exposure of users to quality principles can collectively form the basis for well-founded usage decisions.
Citation
