JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Chronic wounds are predicted to increase within the aging population in industrialized countries. Patients experience significant distress due to pain, wound secretions, and resulting immobilization. As the number of wounds continues to rise, their adequate care becomes increasingly costly in terms of health care resources worldwide. eHealth support systems are being increasingly integrated into patient care. However, up to this date, no systematic analysis of such applications for chronic wounds has been published.

Objective:

The aim of this study is to systematically identify and objectively assess the quality of publicly available mobile apps in German or English for patients with chronic wounds by both patients and physicians.

Methods:

Two reviewers independently conducted a systematic search and assessment of German- or English-language mobile apps for patients with chronic wounds available in the Google Play Store and Apple App Store from April 2022 to May 2022. Three apps met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were then reviewed independently by 10 physicians using the German Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) and the System Usability Scale (SUS). The app with the highest MARS score was subsequently reviewed by 11 patients suffering from chronic wounds, using the German user version of the MARS score (uMARS) and the SUS. Additionally, the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale was collected from both patients and physicians.

Results:

This study assessed mobile apps for patients with chronic wounds from a pool of 118 identified apps. Out of the 73 apps available in both app stores, 10 were patient-oriented. After excluding apps with advertisements or cost, three apps were evaluated by 10 physicians. Mean MARS scores ranged from 2.64 to 3.88 out of 5, and mean SUS scores ranged from 50.75 to 80.5 out of 100. WUND APP received the highest mean MARS score of 3.88/5 among physicians. Hence, it was subsequently assessed by 11 patients and achieved a similar rating, i.e., a uMARS score of 3.89/5. Technical affinity, measured by ATI, was slightly lower in patients (3.62/6) compared to physicians (3.88/6).

Conclusions:

The quality ratings from physicians and patients were comparable, both indicating mediocre app quality. Technical affinity, assessed using the ATI scale, was slightly lower for patients. Adequate apps for patients with chronic wounds remain limited, emphasizing the need for improved app development to meet patient needs. The ATI scale proves valuable for assessing technical affinity among different user groups.