Short answer
When selecting or developing mHealth applications for professional use, prioritize objective quality assessment using standardized tools over mere popularity or frequency of use, and ensure a balance between functionality and user engagement.
- Field
- User-Centred Design
- Source
- JMIR mhealth and uhealth (2019)
- Method
- Expert Review
- Sample
- 25 apps
- Evidence
- Moderate effect
A standardized rating scale can objectively assess the quality of mobile applications for professional use, ensuring that frequently used apps are not automatically assumed to be high-quality. This user-centred design research insight is drawn from a 2019 study published in JMIR mhealth and uhealth. Using Expert review with 25 apps, researchers explored how this design variable affects real-world outcomes. The key design takeaway: When selecting or developing mHealth applications for professional use, prioritize objective quality assessment using standardized tools over mere popularity or frequency of use, and ensure a balance between functionality and user engagement.
User-Centric Evaluation of mHealth Apps for Therapists
A standardized rating scale can objectively assess the quality of mobile applications for professional use, ensuring that frequently used apps are not automatically assumed to be high-quality.
JMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2019
Key Findings
- 01The top 10 apps achieved a mean quality score of 4.3 out of 5.
- 02Apps generally scored higher in functionality than in engagement.
- 03Frequency of app use did not consistently correlate with app quality.
Application
Design takeaway
When selecting or developing mHealth applications for professional use, prioritize objective quality assessment using standardized tools over mere popularity or frequency of use, and ensure a balance between functionality and user engagement.
How to apply
Utilize the uMARS or similar validated rating scales to evaluate the quality of any digital tool before widespread adoption in a professional workflow.
Project actions
- 01When evaluating existing apps for a design project, consider using a standardized rating scale.
- 02Focus on specific user groups and their needs when assessing app quality.
Method & Evidence
Variables
Strengths & Limitations
Strengths
- +Utilizes a validated and standardized rating scale (uMARS).
- +Involves trained researchers for objective assessment.
Limitations
The uMARS is a specific tool; other evaluation methods might yield different results. The researchers' training could influence their ratings.
Reliability & validity
The use of trained researchers and a standardized scale (uMARS) suggests good inter-rater reliability and construct validity for assessing app quality.
Think critically
How might the 'engagement' scores of an app be influenced by factors beyond the app's design itself, such as the user's motivation or the specific clinical context?
Design Principles
"Objective quality assessment is paramount for the effective integration of digital tools in professional practice."
In professional contexts, the selection of digital tools directly impacts efficacy and user experience. Employing a structured evaluation framework like the uMARS allows practitioners to move beyond anecdotal evidence or popularity, ensuring that chosen applications meet defined quality standards for functionality, engagement, and aesthetics.
What This Means for Your Design
Just because lots of therapists use an app doesn't mean it's the best. We need a way to check how good apps really are, looking at how they work, how easy they are to use, and if they're interesting.
How to use in your project
- 1.Reference this study when discussing the importance of evaluating existing digital solutions for your design project.
- 2.Use the uMARS as a model for developing your own evaluation criteria for user-centred design.
Add to My Project
Quick Cite
Paragraph starter
The quality of digital tools is critical for professional efficacy. Research by LeBeau, Huey, and Hart (2019) highlights that frequently used mHealth apps are not always the highest quality, as assessed by the user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS). Their study found that while apps scored well in functionality, engagement was a weaker area, and popularity did not guarantee quality. This underscores the need for designers and practitioners to employ objective evaluation frameworks to ensure that selected applications meet rigorous standards for user experience and performance.
Source
JMIR mhealth and uhealth
Assessing the Quality of Mobile Apps Used by Occupational Therapists: Evaluation Using the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale
journal · 2019
View sourceQuestions About This Research
- What does the research say about user-centric evaluation of mhealth apps for therapists?
- When selecting or developing mHealth applications for professional use, prioritize objective quality assessment using standardized tools over mere popularity or frequency of use, and ensure a balance between functionality and user engagement. Evidence: JMIR mhealth and uhealth (2019).
- Why does "User-Centric Evaluation of mHealth Apps for Therapists" matter for design?
- In professional contexts, the selection of digital tools directly impacts efficacy and user experience. Employing a structured evaluation framework like the uMARS allows practitioners to move beyond anecdotal evidence or popularity, ensuring that chosen applications meet defined quality standards for functionality, engagement, and aesthetics.
- How can designers apply this research?
- When selecting or developing mHealth applications for professional use, prioritize objective quality assessment using standardized tools over mere popularity or frequency of use, and ensure a balance between functionality and user engagement.
- What were the main findings?
- The top 10 apps achieved a mean quality score of 4.3 out of 5.. Apps generally scored higher in functionality than in engagement.. Frequency of app use did not consistently correlate with app quality.
- What research method was used?
- Expert Review with 25 apps.
- How strong is the evidence?
- Evidence strength is rated Moderate effect, based on a 2019 journal from JMIR mhealth and uhealth.
- What should I do differently in my next project?
- Utilize the uMARS or similar validated rating scales to evaluate the quality of any digital tool before widespread adoption in a professional workflow.
- What are the limitations?
- The study focused on a specific professional group (occupational therapists) and a defined set of apps; findings may not generalize to all healthcare professionals or app categories. The subjective nature of 'engagement' can also be a limitation.