Recommending high-quality health apps: Identifying key behavioral determinants of healthcare professional behavior

Examine the association between children's distress and coping during venepuncture with parent's and healthcare professional's behavior in a sample from the UK. Fifty children aged 7-16 years accompanied by a carer were videotaped while having venepuncture. Verbalizations of children, parents, and healthcare professionals were coded using the Child-Adult Medical Procedure Interaction Scale-Revised. Children's distress was associated with child's age, anxiety, and distress promoting behavior of adults (R(2) = .91). Children's coping was associated with age, anxiety, and coping promoting behaviors of adults (R(2) = .57). Associations were stronger between healthcare professional's behavior and child coping; and between parent's behaviors and child distress. Empathizing, apologizing, and criticism were not frequently used by adults in this sample (<12%). This study supports and extends previous research showing adult's behavior is important in children's distress and coping during needle procedures. Clinical implications and methodological issues are discussed.

BackgroundThe adoption of high-quality health apps has been slow, despite the myriad benefits associated with their use. This is partly due to concerns regarding the effectiveness, safety, and data privacy of such apps. Quality assessments with robust and transparent criteria can address these concerns and, thereby, encourage the use of high-quality apps. However, a major challenge for such assessments is reaching a scale at which a substantial proportion of the more than 350,000 available health apps can be evaluated.ObjectiveTo support the scaling of health app quality assessments, this study aimed to examine the preferences and willingness to pay for assessments with different value propositions among potential customers.MethodsWe conducted 2 discrete choice experiments: one with 41 health app developers and another with 46 health system representatives (from health care institutions, authorities, and insurers) from across Europe. Mixed logit models were applied to examine the impact of assessment attributes on participants’ choices as well as to calculate marginal willingness to pay and predicted assessment uptake.ResultsAmong health app developers, the attributes with the largest impact on assessment choices were the associated clinical care uptake (integration into clinical guidelines and reimbursement or procurement) and cost (purchase price). Increased willingness to use assessed apps and app store integration of assessment results had a moderate impact on choices, while required developer time investment and time until assessment results become available made the smallest contribution. Among health system representatives, increased willingness of clinicians and patients to use evaluated apps had the greatest impact on assessment choices, followed by cost. Time until assessment result availability and the percentage of peers recommending the assessment made a moderate contribution, while reassessment frequency had the smallest impact on choices. On average, health app developers were willing to pay an additional €9020 (95% CI €4968-€13,072) if an assessment facilitates guideline integration and procurement or reimbursement (at the time of data collection, €1=US $1.11), while health system representatives were, on average, willing to pay €7037 (95% CI €4267-€9806) more if an assessment results in a large, rather than a small, increase in willingness to use the evaluated app. The predicted uptake of assessments that offer the preferred values for all attributes was 88.6% among app developers and 91.1% among health system representatives.ConclusionsThese findings indicate that, to maximize uptake and willingness to pay among health app developers, it is advisable for assessments to facilitate or enable clinical guideline integration and reimbursement or procurement for high-scoring apps. Assessment scaling thus requires close collaboration with health authorities, health care institutions, and insurers. Furthermore, if health system organizations are targeted as customers, it is essential to provide evidence for the assessment’s impact on patients’ and clinicians’ willingness to use health apps.

BackgroundThe lack of an international standard for assessing and communicating health app quality and the lack of consensus about what makes a high-quality health app negatively affect the uptake of such apps. At the request of the European Commission, the international Standard Development Organizations (SDOs), European Committee for Standardization, International Organization for Standardization, and International Electrotechnical Commission have joined forces to develop a technical specification (TS) for assessing the quality and reliability of health and wellness apps.ObjectiveThis study aimed to create a useful, globally applicable, trustworthy, and usable framework to assess health app quality.MethodsA 2-round Delphi technique with 83 experts from 6 continents (predominantly Europe) participating in one (n=42, 51%) or both (n=41, 49%) rounds was used to achieve consensus on a framework for assessing health app quality. Aims included identifying the maximum 100 requirement questions for the uptake of apps that do or do not qualify as medical devices. The draft assessment framework was built on 26 existing frameworks, the principles of stringent legislation, and input from 20 core experts. A follow-up survey with 28 respondents informed a scoring mechanism for the questions. After subsequent alignment with related standards, the quality assessment framework was tested and fine-tuned with manufacturers of 11 COVID-19 symptom apps. National mirror committees from the 52 countries that participated in the SDO technical committees were invited to comment on 4 working drafts and subsequently vote on the TS.ResultsThe final quality assessment framework includes 81 questions, 67 (83%) of which impact the scores of 4 overarching quality aspects. After testing with people with low health literacy, these aspects were phrased as “Healthy and safe,” “Easy to use,” “Secure data,” and “Robust build.” The scoring mechanism enables communication of the quality assessment results in a health app quality score and label, alongside a detailed report. Unstructured interviews with stakeholders revealed that evidence and third-party assessment are needed for health app uptake. The manufacturers considered the time needed to complete the assessment and gather evidence (2-4 days) acceptable. Publication of CEN-ISO/TS 82304-2:2021 Health software – Part 2: Health and wellness apps – Quality and reliability was approved in May 2021 in a nearly unanimous vote by 34 national SDOs, including 6 of the 10 most populous countries worldwide.ConclusionsA useful and usable international standard for health app quality assessment was developed. Its quality, approval rate, and early use provide proof of its potential to become the trusted, commonly used global framework. The framework will help manufacturers enhance and efficiently demonstrate the quality of health apps, consumers, and health care professionals to make informed decisions on health apps. It will also help insurers to make reimbursement decisions on health apps.

BackgroundDigital health apps allow for proactive rather than reactive health care and have the potential to take the pressure off health care providers. With over 350,000 digital health apps available on the app stores today, those apps need to be of sufficient quality to be safe to use. Discovering the typology of digital health apps regarding professional and clinical assurance (PCA), user experience (UX), data privacy (DP), and user ratings may help in determining the areas where digital health apps can improve.ObjectiveThis study has two objectives: (1) discover the types (clusters) of digital health apps with regards to their quality (scores) across 3 domains (their PCA, UX, and DP) and user ratings and (2) determine whether the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Evidence Standard Framework’s (ESF’s) tier, target users of the digital health apps, categories, or features have any association with this typology.MethodsData were obtained from 1402 digital health app assessments conducted using the Organisation for the Review of Care and Health Apps Baseline Review (OBR), evaluating PCA, UX, and DP. K-medoids clustering identified app typologies, with the optimal number of clusters determined using the elbow method. The Shapiro-Wilk test assessed normality of user ratings and OBR scores. Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests compared cluster differences in these metrics. Post hoc analysis examined the distribution of NICE ESF tiers, target users, categories, and features across clusters, using Fisher exact test with Bonferroni correction. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen w.ResultsA total of four distinct app clusters emerged: (1) apps with poor user ratings (220/1402, 15.7%), (2) apps with poor PCA and DP scores (252/1402, 18%), (3) apps with poor PCA scores (415/1402, 29.6%), and (4) higher quality apps with high user ratings and OBR scores (515/1402, 36.7%). While some statistically significant associations were found between clusters and NICE ESF tiers (2/3), target users (0/14), categories (4/33), and features (6/19), all had small effect sizes (Cohen w<0.3). The strongest associations were for the “Service Signposting” feature (Cohen w=0.24) and NICE ESF tier B (Cohen w=0.19).ConclusionsThe largest cluster comprised high-quality apps with strong user ratings and OBR scores (515/1402, 36.7%). A significant proportion (415/1402, 29.6%) performed poorly in PCA despite performing well in other domains. Notably, user ratings did not consistently align with PCA scores; some apps scored highly with users but poorly in PCA and DP. The 4-cluster typology underscores areas needing improvement, particularly PCA. Findings suggest limited association between the examined app characteristics and quality clusters, indicating a need for further investigation into what factors truly influence app quality.

Background The CMO of England recently recommended Vitamin D supplementation for the whole population during the autumn and winter months (1). Current uptake is known to be poor with potential risk to future health (2). Health apps may be a useful source of information for consumers. Aims To evaluate the quality of currently available Vitamin D smartphone apps specifically targeting children’s health. Methods Vitamin D apps on iOS and Android mobile smartphones systems were categorised according to their aims. A Pubmed and Google Scholar search identified the criteria necessary for high quality health apps and a validated mobile applications rating scale (MARS). An adapted MARS (3) was used to score the apps for standard of information quality by 3 independent health professional raters. Results Measures for high quality health apps include content quality, accuracy and reliability, links to clinical input and evidence based guidelines or practice, app validation under real world conditions, addressing technical quality (eg. functional bugs; patient consent), and behavioural and strategy index scoring. Of a total of 72 Vitamin D apps (51 iOS; 21 Android), only one iOS app was identified supporting child healthcare, designed by a research institute affiliated with a Children’s Hospital for exclusive use by its patients/carers. This app provides referenced condition specific information and incorporates daily text reminders for parents to ensure good compliance with required administration of Vitamin D doses to the child. The app is used as part of the holistic care package delivered to these children by their secondary care based multi-disciplinary specialist health professional team and scored highly for information quality (MARS 22). An osteoporosis healthcare app scored higher (MARS 26) but is restricted for use by clinicians and is not child specific. Conclusion Our work identified a single high quality Vitamin D app designed specifically to act as a reminder tool for parents with children requiring daily doses, used within a specialist hospital setting There is no high quality app available to support routine supplementation.

Health apps offer an approach to improve the patients' management of their medication. Although the Digital Healthcare Act (DVG) has created a claim in the statutory health insurance (SHI), the large number of health apps available and their varying quality make it difficult for service providers and especially for medical laypersons to select an adequate high-quality medication app. Manufacturers need guidance for the development of high-quality apps right from the start. Various general evaluation concepts for health apps have been available to date. However, the requirements that should be met by healthcare depend largely on the field of application and the type of apps. This article aims to provide an overview of the international evidence on specific criteria for the evaluation of medication apps. Within the framework of a scoping review, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE on January 29, 2020. The search was limited to publications from 2007 onwards as well as to English and German articles. Additionally, a semi-systematic research of reference lists of the previously included articles as well as a structured search of websites of relevant stakeholders were conducted. Inclusion criteria were the following: the publication deals with health apps that can be used on smartphones and focus on supporting medication intake; the publication does not refer to evaluation criteria for a single app exclusively. The included publications were examined in a qualitative content analysis searching for evaluation criteria and categorizing them according to the framework criteria of the DVG and the Digital Health Applications Ordinance (DiGAV). 2,542 articles were identified in the systematic search (999 in PubMed, 1,543 in EMBASE, 560 duplicates). A total of 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. The semi-systematic research and the structured search identified one further study. A catalog of criteria was developed based on the included 17 studies. This catalog covers the general topics "patient orientation" (data protection and security, consumer protection, user friendliness) and "quality/core functions of medication apps" (reminder, self-monitoring, (drug) information, motivation to change behavior, drug/patient safety, robustness) as well as "interoperability/cooperation". Due to its specific importance for medication apps, the subcategory "motivation for behavioral change" stands out beneath the general topic "quality/core functions of medication apps". This category aims to evaluate the design of individual functions with regard to their potential to actually change the behavior of app users. The criteria for the evaluation of health apps mentioned in the DiGAV intersected with the criteria identified in the literature research. However, the area of positive health care effects was hardly covered by the included studies. In the development of the criteria catalog, it was not possible to weight the identified criteria. Therefore, the catalog should be understood as a supporting checklist for service providers, manufacturers, and/or users. A large variety of possible evaluation criteria for medication apps could be shown. Future research should focus on the possibilities of weighting these diverse evaluation criteria, using not only clinical studies but also methods to identify preferences.

Background: Health apps are a booming, yet under-regulated market, with potential consumer harms in privacy and health safety. Regulation of the health app market tends to be siloed, with no single sector holding comprehensive oversight. We sought to explore this phenomenon by critically analysing how the problem of health app regulation is being presented and addressed in the policy arena.Methods: We conducted a critical, qualitative case study of regulation of the Australian mental health app market. We purposively sampled influential policies from government, industry and non-profit organisations that provided oversight of app development, distribution or selection for use. We used Bacchi’s critical, theoretical approach to policy analysis, analysing policy solutions in relation to the ways the underlying problem was presented and discussed. We analysed the ways that policies characterised key stakeholder groups and the rationale policy authors provided for various mechanisms of health app oversight.Results: We identified and analysed 29 policies from Australia and beyond, spanning 5 sectors: medical device, privacy, advertising, finance, and digital content. Policy authors predominantly framed the problem as potential loss of commercial reputations and profits, rather than consumer protection. Policy solutions assigned main responsibility for app oversight to the public, with a heavy onus on consumers to select safe and high-quality apps. Commercial actors, including powerful app distributors and commercial third parties were rarely subjects of policy initiatives, despite having considerable power to affect app user outcomes.Conclusion: A stronger regulatory focus on app distributors and commercial partners may improve consumer privacy and safety. Policy-makers in different sectors should work together to develop an overarching regulatory framework for health apps, with a focus on consumer protection.

Background/Objectives: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the primary indication for antibiotic use in nursing homes (NHs); yet inappropriate prescribing, including incorrect initiation, excessive prophylactic prescribing and prolonged treatment duration, is common. This study aimed to identify key determinants of appropriate antibiotic prescribing for UTIs in NHs by exploring the behaviours and perspectives of relevant stakeholders. Methods: Interviews and focus group sessions with regard to a purposive sample of 4 NHs and healthcare professionals were conducted between June 2023 and April 2024 in Flanders (Belgium). The topic guide was developed based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). A combination of deductive and inductive coding was used to identify behavioural determinants within each TDF domain. Key behavioural determinants were identified based on their importance, relevance, and feasibility. Results: We conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with residents/relatives (n = 13), physicians (n = 9), pharmacists (n = 10), and NH management (n = 5) and held 4 focus group sessions with nurses (n = 16) and nurse aides (n = 10). Appropriate antibiotic prescribing for UTIs in NHs was influenced by a complex interplay of behavioural determinants. Key behavioural determinants included lack of knowledge of guidelines, lack of self-reflection and monitoring, fear of missing complications, feelings of powerlessness, prioritising residents’ comfort, hierarchical relations with treating physicians being dominant, social pressure to prescribe, and the NH as a challenging context. Conclusions: This study identified key behavioural determinants that should be targeted to optimise antibiotic prescribing for UTIs in NHs. These findings underscore the need to conduct a theory-informed, multifaceted intervention to support behaviour change across professional roles and improve antimicrobial stewardship in this setting.

Mosquito-borne disease (MBD) control depends largely on a range of public health measures aimed at reducing the spread of infected mosquitoes and human-mosquito contact. These public health measures are generally driven by voluntary, though in few occasions obligatory (e.g., indoor residual spraying), self-protective behaviors by individuals and communities. To develop effective interventions that promote public health measures, the underlying mechanisms that contribute to self-protective behaviors should be well understood. The present scoping review aims to provide a timely overview of how behavior change theories have been applied in the context of MBD control. In addition, the review proposes an integrated model that includes identified key determinants in MBD control behavior, and identifies knowledge gaps to inform future research. A comprehensive search was performed in several databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, ERIC, and Econ.Lit (EBSCO), as well as registered trials and reviews in CENTRAL and PROSPERO to identify ongoing or unpublished studies. References of included studies and literature reviews were screened, as well as citation tracking in Web of Science, Google Scholar and the malaria database of Behavior Change Impact. This scoping review identified a total of 28 studies. Most studies targeted personal-protective behavioral measures such as adopting, using, or maintaining insecticide-treated bed nets, and were most frequently informed by risk-related behavioral theories. Knowledge and perceived susceptibility of the risk, and related perceived efficacy were identified as key behavioral determinants in the conceptual, integrated human behavior model for MBD control. Numerous studies related to MBD control behavior, especially those focusing on knowledge-attitudes-practices (KAP), often lack a solid theoretical framework, which risks depicting an incomplete understanding of behaviors. In addition, by incorporating various behavioral disciplines into the domain of MBD control, a more comprehensive understanding of key behavioral determinants may be developed and applied in future research and MBD control efforts.

Effective and efficient medication reporting processes are essential in promoting patient safety. Few qualitative studies have explored reporting of medication errors by health professionals, and none have made reference to behavioural theories. The objective was to describe and understand the behavioural determinants of health professional reporting of medication errors in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This was a qualitative study comprising face-to-face, semi-structured interviews within three major medical/surgical hospitals of Abu Dhabi, the UAE. Health professionals were sampled purposively in strata of profession and years of experience. The semi-structured interview schedule focused on behavioural determinants around medication error reporting, facilitators, barriers and experiences. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF; a framework of theories of behaviour change) was used as a coding framework. Ethical approval was obtained from a UK university and all participating hospital ethics committees. Data saturation was achieved after interviewing ten nurses, ten pharmacists and nine physicians. Whilst it appeared that patient safety and organisational improvement goals and intentions were behavioural determinants which facilitated reporting, there were key determinants which deterred reporting. These included the beliefs of the consequences of reporting (lack of any feedback following reporting and impacting professional reputation, relationships and career progression), emotions (fear and worry) and issues related to the environmental context (time taken to report). These key behavioural determinants which negatively impact error reporting can facilitate the development of an intervention, centring on organisational safety and reporting culture, to enhance reporting effectiveness and efficiency.

With the increasing use of health apps and ongoing concerns regarding their safety, effectiveness, and data privacy, numerous health app quality assessment frameworks have emerged. However, assessment initiatives experience difficulties scaling, and there is currently no comprehensive, consistent, internationally recognized assessment framework. Therefore, health apps often need to undergo several quality evaluations to enter different markets, leading to duplication of work. The CEN ISO/TS 82304‑2 health app assessment seeks to address this issue, aiming to provide an internationally accepted quality evaluation through a network of assessment organizations located in different countries. This study aimed to develop and evolve the draft CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 assessment handbook and developer guidance by testing them across organizations in several countries. Assessment organizations from 5 countries were engaged to evaluate 24 health apps using the evolving CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 assessment across 3 evaluation rounds. The information submitted by a given health app developer was evaluated by 2 assessment organizations, and interrater reliability was examined. In addition, app developers and assessors were asked to report how much time they spent on information collation or evaluation and to rate the clarity of the developer guidance or assessor handbook, respectively. The collected data were used to iteratively improve the handbook and guidance between rounds. The interrater reliability between assessment organizations improved from round 1 to round 2 and stayed relatively stable between rounds 2 and 3, with 80% (55/69) of assessment questions demonstrating moderate or better (Gwet AC1>0.41) agreement in round 3. The median time required by developers to prepare the assessment information was 8 hours and 59 minutes (IQR 5.7-27.1 hours) in round 3, whereas assessors reported a median evaluation time of 8 hours and 46 minutes (IQR 7.1-11.0 hours). The draft guidance and handbook were generally perceived as clear, with a median round-3 clarity rating of 1.73 (IQR 1.64-1.90) for developers and 1.78 (IQR 1.71-1.89) for assessors (0="very unclear", 1="somewhat unclear", and 2="completely clear"). To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the consistency of health app evaluations across organizations located in different countries. Given that the CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 guidance and handbook are still under development, the interrater reliability findings observed at this early stage are promising, and this study provided valuable information for further refinement of the assessment. This study marks an important first step toward establishing the CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 assessment as a consistent, cross-national health app evaluation. It is envisioned that the assessment will ultimately help avoid duplication of work, prevent inequities by facilitating access to smaller markets for developers, and build trust among users, thereby increasing the adoption of high-quality health apps.

There are more than 318,000 mobile health apps available worldwide and more than 200 new apps become available each day. Although most are general wellness apps, the number of those related to patient care and management of health conditions continues to increase and has reached 40 percent of all health apps on the market. In fact, there is at least one high-quality app (i.e., apps with such attributes as good patient ratings, frequent updates, and promising clinical evidence) available to support patients’ needs at each stage of the care continuum, from prevention to treatment. More than 570 studies on mobile apps have been published, providing a robust amount of clinical evidence on their quality and effectiveness.1 One survey identified that 75 percent of U.S. health consumers believe technology, including apps, is important for managing their health. Mobile health apps are being embraced by patients for a multitude of uses, including virtual care and tracking, recording, and sharing health data, such as blood pressure and heart rate.2 Top uses for virtual care have included after-hours and follow-up appointments and concern-specific discussions. The use of virtual care continues to increase; 25 percent of surveyed consumers indicated they used these services in 2018, which is up from 21 percent in 2017. The majority of 2018 respondents who used these services (74 percent) said they were satisfied with the virtual care they received; in fact, approximately 50 percent of all respondents reported they would prefer a faster virtual care appointment than a delayed in-person visit.2 Moreover, 79 percent of U.S. consumers reported in another survey that they are more likely to choose a health care provider who has methods in place to connect virtually instead of one who does not.3 Ninety percent of patients surveyed indicated they are willing to share their health data obtained from mobile apps and wearable devices with their health care team.2 For health care professionals, mobile apps are beneficial for a range of uses, including to access medical references for point-of-care decisions; assist with hospital information systems, such as the electronic health record; communicate with other clinicians; perform training; and remotely monitor patients. In one survey, approximately 30 to 50 percent of U.S. clinicians reported using apps to actively engage in patient care, including to collect patient information at the bedside and monitor medical device information.3 Approximately 66 percent of the 100 biggest U.S. hospitals provide mobile apps for patients; 40 percent of these developed the apps in house.4 Health apps have been proven to reduce use of acute care services for diabetes, asthma, and cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation; the use of apps in just these categories has the potential to save $7 billion in health care costs annually in the United States.1 Mobile apps can augment care for both patients and health care providers at all stages of care. Surveys of U.S. health care consumers and professionals point to an increasing adoption of this technology, highlighting the importance of identifying ways to incorporate these tools into patients’ health maintenance and care. This month’s lead feature discusses the use of mobile apps to aid patients in their postoperative recovery, including for medication compliance, pain management, and follow-up care.

To quantify the presence of health behavior theory constructs in iPhone apps targeting physical activity. This study used a content analysis of 127 apps from Apple's (App Store) Health & Fitness category. Coders downloaded the apps and then used an established theory-based instrument to rate each app's inclusion of theoretical constructs from prominent behavior change theories. Five common items were used to measure 20 theoretical constructs, for a total of 100 items. A theory score was calculated for each app. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with higher theory scores. Apps were generally observed to be lacking in theoretical content. Theory scores ranged from 1 to 28 on a 100-point scale. The health belief model was the most prevalent theory, accounting for 32% of all constructs. Regression analyses indicated that higher priced apps and apps that addressed a broader activity spectrum were associated with higher total theory scores. It is not unexpected that apps contained only minimal theoretical content, given that app developers come from a variety of backgrounds and many are not trained in the application of health behavior theory. The relationship between price and theory score corroborates research indicating that higher quality apps are more expensive. There is an opportunity for health and behavior change experts to partner with app developers to incorporate behavior change theories into the development of apps. These future collaborations between health behavior change experts and app developers could foster apps superior in both theory and programming possibly resulting in better health outcomes.

To analyse the relationship between health app quality with user ratings and the number of downloads of corresponding health apps. Utilising a dataset of 881 Android-based health apps, assessed via the 300-point objective Organisation for the Review of Care and Health Applications (ORCHA) assessment tool, we explored whether subjective user-level indicators of quality (user ratings and downloads) correlate with objective quality scores in the domains of user experience, data privacy and professional/clinical assurance. For this purpose, we applied spearman correlation and multiple linear regression models. For user experience, professional/clinical assurance and data privacy scores, all models had very low adjusted R squared values (< .02). Suggesting that there is no meaningful link between subjective user ratings or the number of health app downloads and objective quality measures. Spearman correlations suggested that prior downloads only had a very weak positive correlation with user experience scores (Spearman = .084, p = .012) and data privacy scores (Spearman = .088, p = .009). There was a very weak negative correlation between downloads and professional/clinical assurance score (Spearman = -.081, p = .016). Additionally, user ratings demonstrated a very weak correlation with no statistically significant correlations observed between user ratings and the scores (all p > 0.05). For ORCHA scores multiple linear regression had adjusted R-squared = -.002. This study highlights that widely available proxies which users may perceive to signify the quality of health apps, namely user ratings and downloads, are inaccurate predictors for estimating quality. This indicates the need for wider use of quality assurance methodologies which can accurately determine the quality, safety, and compliance of health apps. Findings suggest more should be done to enable users to recognise high-quality health apps, including digital health literacy training and the provision of nationally endorsed "libraries".

BackgroundPatients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), a chronic systematic inflammatory disease, require long-term treatment and management. Mobile health (mHealth) apps can deliver health services through mobile devices, facilitate long-term disease management, support patient–health care provider communication, and enable patients to engage in disease management. There are some apps targeted at patients with AS, but the feature and quality of these apps have not been systematically examined.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify existing, publicly available Chinese mHealth apps for AS management and to evaluate their features and quality.MethodsWe systematically searched potential apps for AS management on the Apple and Huawei App Stores, using 4 search terms: ankylosing spondylitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatic disease, and arthritis. Apps were included if they were in the Chinese language, targeted at patients with AS, could be downloaded and run on Android and/or iOS operating systems, and incorporated elements of disease management and/or patient education. We excluded apps that were not for patient use, not relevant to AS, or had not been updated since 2018. Apps that met the inclusion criteria were downloaded for final analysis. We formulated a list of app quality measures from and consistent with international guidelines for mHealth apps and AS management to evaluate the features and quality of the included app. The user version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (uMARS) was also used to rate the apps’ quality.ResultsOf the 354 apps screened, 5 met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. All apps were free, and most apps (4/5, 80%) had a privacy policy. Of the 5 apps, 1 (20%) involved medical professionals in the development process, 2 (40%) were developed by companies, and 2 (40%) were developed by medical institutions. All apps provided educational information about AS. Around half of the apps had functions like a basic information record (ie, users can input gender, age, disease history, etc) (n=3, 60%), patient–health care provider (and patient-patient) communication (n=2, 40%), symptom tracking (n=2, 40%), and information sharing (n=3, 60%). Only 1 (20%) app provided comprehensive functions that adhered to international guidelines for AS management and mHealth apps. The overall uMARS scores ranged from 2.7 to 4.2; only 1 app, with an overall uMARS score of 4.2, was considered as a high-quality app.ConclusionsMost apps lacked comprehensive functions for AS management. One high-quality app provided comprehensive functions to help patients manage their conditions. This study assessed and summarized the features and quality of the apps but did not evaluate their efficacy. Future studies should evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of these apps. International guidelines and regulations for the design, development, validation, and implementation of mHealth apps are needed in the future. Meanwhile, health care providers, patients with AS, and app developers should collaborate to develop high-quality, evidence-based apps that take into account patients’ needs and health care professionals’ perspectives.