Evaluating evaluation frameworks: a scoping review of frameworks for assessing health apps.
Evaluating evaluation frameworks: a scoping review of frameworks for assessing health apps.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047001
复制
发表时间：
2021-03-19
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Torous J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lagan S;Sandler L;Torous J
尽管市场上估计有30万个移动的健康应用程序，但在帮助患者和临床医生选择安全有效的应用程序方面仍然没有达成共识。2018年，我们的团队利用现有的评估框架来确定突出的类别，并创建了一个由美国精神病学协会（阿帕）认可的新框架。此后，我们创建了一个更扩展和可操作的框架Mhealth Index和导航数据库（MIND），该数据库与阿帕类别保持一致，但包括客观和可审计的问题。我们试图调查现有的空间，对自2018年以来发布的所有移动的健康应用程序评估框架进行审查，并通过将其与现有和新兴框架进行比较来展示这种新模式的全面性。我们对移动的健康应用程序评估框架进行了范围审查。通过检索PubMed、EMBASE和PsychINFO确定参考文献，出版日期为2018年1月至2020年10月。如果论文符合预定的合格标准，则选择纳入-提供移动的健康应用程序的评估框架，并提供患者、临床医生或最终用户面对的问题。两名评审员分别筛选文献并应用纳入标准。从论文中提取的数据包括：作者和出版日期、来源关系、来源国、框架名称、研究设计、框架描述、预期受众/用户和框架评分系统。然后，我们在79个框架中收集了超过1701个问题。我们使用MIND框架作为参考，对这些问题进行了比较和分组。我们试图确定最常见的评估领域，同时评估MIND的全面性和灵活性以及任何潜在的差距。新的应用程序评估框架不断出现和扩展。自我们2019年对应用程序评估框架空间进行审查以来，更多的框架包括有关隐私（43）和临床基础（57）的问题，反映出人们越来越关注应用程序安全和证据基础问题。大多数映射框架与至少一半的MIND类别重叠。这一搜索的结果已经通知了用户今天可以访问的数据库（apps.digitalpsych.org）。随着应用程序评估框架数量的不断增加，用户越来越难以选择合适的评估工具并找到合适的健康应用程序。本文对不同的应用程序评估框架进行了比较，其中包括该领域的融合以及改进临床指导的新优先事项。
Despite an estimated 300 000 mobile health apps on the market, there remains no consensus around helping patients and clinicians select safe and effective apps. In 2018, our team drew on existing evaluation frameworks to identify salient categories and create a new framework endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). We have since created a more expanded and operational framework Mhealth Index and Navigation Database (MIND) that aligns with the APA categories but includes objective and auditable questions (105). We sought to survey the existing space, conducting a review of all mobile health app evaluation frameworks published since 2018, and demonstrate the comprehensiveness of this new model by comparing it to existing and emerging frameworks. We conducted a scoping review of mobile health app evaluation frameworks. References were identified through searches of PubMed, EMBASE and PsychINFO with publication date between January 2018 and October 2020. Papers were selected for inclusion if they meet the predetermined eligibility criteria—presenting an evaluation framework for mobile health apps with patient, clinician or end user-facing questions. Two reviewers screened the literature separately and applied the inclusion criteria. The data extracted from the papers included: author and dates of publication, source affiliation, country of origin, name of framework, study design, description of framework, intended audience/user and framework scoring system. We then compiled a collection of more than 1701 questions across 79 frameworks. We compared and grouped these questions using the MIND framework as a reference. We sought to identify the most common domains of evaluation while assessing the comprehensiveness and flexibility—as well as any potential gaps—of MIND. New app evaluation frameworks continue to emerge and expand. Since our 2019 review of the app evaluation framework space, more frameworks include questions around privacy (43) and clinical foundation (57), reflecting an increased focus on issues of app security and evidence base. The majority of mapped frameworks overlapped with at least half of the MIND categories. The results of this search have informed a database (apps.digitalpsych.org) that users can access today. As the number of app evaluation frameworks continues to rise, it is becoming difficult for users to select both an appropriate evaluation tool and to find an appropriate health app. This review provides a comparison of what different app evaluation frameworks are offering, where the field is converging and new priorities for improving clinical guidance.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
9.3
作者：
Rodriguez-Villa, Elena;Torous, John
通讯作者：
Torous, John
影响因子：
15.2
作者：
Coravos, Andrea;Doerr, Megan;Wood, William A.
通讯作者：
Wood, William A.
影响因子：
15.2
作者：
Levine, David M.;Co, Zoe;Bates, David W.
通讯作者：
Bates, David W.
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
McMillan, Brian;Hickey, Eamonn;Mitchell, Caroline
通讯作者：
Mitchell, Caroline
影响因子：
8.5
作者：
Hussain, Muzammil;Zaidan, A. A.;Albahri, A. S.
通讯作者：
Albahri, A. S.