Assessing Apps for Patients with Genitourinary Tumors Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS): Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis

• DOI: 10.2196/17609
• Publication Date: 2020-03-24T02:10:29Z
• Authors: Miguel Ángel Amor...; Roberto Collado-B...; Vicente Escudero-...; Alejandra Melgare...; Ana Herranz-Alonso; José Ángel Arranz...; María Sanjurjo-Sáez
• Keywords: App store; mHealth; Mobile apps

Background The large number of available cancer apps and their impact on the population necessitates a transparent, objective, comprehensive evaluation by app experts, health care professionals, users. To date, there have been no analyses or classifications for patients with genitourinary cancers, which are among most prevalent types cancer. Objective objective our study was to analyze quality diagnosed cancers using Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) identify high-quality apps. Methods We performed an observational cross-sectional descriptive all smartphone iOS Android platforms. In July 2019, we searched (bladder, prostate, cervical, uterine, endometrial, kidney, testicular, vulvar) caregivers. Apps were downloaded evaluated, general characteristics entered into database. 2 independent researchers MARS questionnaire, rates 23 criteria clustered in 5 domains (Engagement, Functionality, Esthetics, Information, Subjective Quality) scale from 1 5. Results total, 46 analyzed. Of these, 31 (67%) Android, 6 (13%) iOS, 9 (20%) both free 89% cases (41/46), 61% (28/46) had updated previous year. intended prostate 30% (14/46) cervical 17% (8/46). mainly informative (63%, 29/46), preventive (24%, 11/46), diagnostic (13%, 6/46). Only 7/46 (15%) developed organizations. mean score overall 2.98 (SD 0.77), maximum 4.63 minimum 1.95. Functionality scores quite similar apps, greatest differences Engagement showed acceptable one-third highest following: “Bladder manager,” “Kidney “My “Target Ovarian Cancer Symptoms Diary,” Coach.” observed statistically significant between operating systems developer (P<.001 P=.01, respectively), but not cost (P=.62). Conclusions is helpful methodology decide can be prescribed features should addressed improve these tools. Most designed only try provide data about disease, without coherent interactivity. participation professionals development low; nevertheless, that regular updates correlated quality.