![]() ![]() The second strategy consisted of searching websites from professional organizations that had guidelines and recommendations for health apps. Information on Websites From Professional Organizations Some more recent attempts to provide alternatives to assess mHealth apps also share some of these weaknesses (eg, developed for one specific group of stakeholders and using one specific source of information). Therefore, this scale does not seem to be suited for use by all stakeholders. That is to say, although the authors used information from studies on existing mobile apps, they failed to include information from other relevant sources that had been used, which would have increased the reliability and validity of their work (eg, standards governing the development of software for health or medical devices). However, this scale was created from a very narrow perspective for assessing already developed apps. This scale was on the basis of a review of the papers published between 20, which contained explicit app-related quality rating criteria. Stoyanov et al developed a scale (Mobile App Rating Scale ) to classify and rate the quality of mHealth apps. There has been one recent attempt to develop a rating scale for mobile apps that could be used to help overcome this problem. ![]() Clearly, having a set of common criteria would be instrumental in helping the field to make progress in a consensual way and overcome potential risks for all stakeholders. This is a problem not only for the safety of end users (ie, patients and health care professionals) but also for professional developers. Therefore, the certification process is weighed down by the lack of clear standards to guide users through the different stages of the process. Despite these initiatives, there is still no specific regulation procedure, accreditation system, or standards to help the development of apps, mitigate risks, and guarantee quality. At the international level, the European Commission published a Green Paper on mHealth and launched a public consultation to identify potential barriers to and problems in the development of mHealth. For example, Catalonia approved a strategic action plan to support the development of mHealth (ie, The Mobility Master Plan: mHealth solutions ), which includes AppSalut, an accreditation system and guide created to certify the quality of health– and social-related apps. There are some local and international initiatives to help in this process. In this so-called strategic field, progress depends not only on what each research group is doing but also on developing general standards and improving certification procedures. This situation has been identified as preventing the field from improving and advancing. For example, a recent review of the mobile apps available for chronic pain-which is one of the most prevalent health problems, with an enormous economic cost to individuals, families, and society -highlighted that of the 283 apps available at the time, just a handful had undergone usability and validity tests. In fact, very few of the health apps available have undergone a thorough validation process, and this causes a lack of confidence among health professionals. However, mHealth solutions have grown exponentially with almost no control or regulation of any kind. In the last few years, mHealth has undergone considerable development because of its potential to make health care more accessible and affordable for all. It is in this environment that what is known as mobile health (mHealth) is proving to be of key importance. Public health care systems worldwide are facing major challenges (eg, a shortage of resources and a steady increase in demand), which can make them increasingly unsustainable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |