Users’ Needs for Mental Health Apps: Quality Evaluation Using the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Mental health is an essential element of life. However, existing mental health services face challenges in utilization due to issues such as societal prejudices and a shortage of counselors. Mobile health is gaining attention as an alternative approach to improving mental health by addressing the shortcomings of traditional services. As a result, various mental health apps are being developed, but there is a lack of evaluation research on whether these apps meet users' needs. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the content and quality of mental health apps from the user's perspective and identify the content features that influence evaluation scores. We also aim to guide future updates and improvements in mental health apps to deliver high-quality solutions to users. Methods: We searched the Google Play Store and iOS App Store using Korean keywords "mental health," "mental health care," "depression," and "stress." Apps meeting the following criteria were selected for the study: relevance to the topic, written in Korean, more than 700 reviews (Android) or more than 200 reviews (iOS), updated within the past 365 days, available for free, nonduplicate, and currently operational. After identifying and defining the primary contents of the apps, 7 users evaluated their quality using the user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS). Correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationships among app content, uMARS scores, star ratings, and the number of reviews. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to identify the factors influencing uMARS scores and each evaluation item. Results: The analysis included a total of 41 mental health apps. Content analysis revealed that reminders (n=29, 71%), recording and statistics features (n=29, 71%), and diaries (n=24, 59%) were the most common app components. The top-rated apps, as determined by uMARS evaluations, consistently provided information about counselors and counseling agencies, and included counseling services. uMARS scores were significantly correlated with the presence of health care provider information (r=0.53; P<.001) and counseling/question and answer services (r=0.55; P<.001). Multiple regression analysis indicated that providing more relevant information was associated with higher uMARS scores (β=.361; P=.02). Conclusions: The quality of mental health apps was evaluated from the user's perspective using a validated scale. To deliver a high-quality mental health app, it is essential to incorporate app technologies such as generative artificial intelligence during development and to continuously monitor app quality from the user's perspective.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,055 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».