Quality and Accessibility of Home Assessment mHealth Apps for Community Living: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Home assessment is a critical component of successful home modifications, enabling individuals with functional limitations to age in place comfortably. A high-quality home assessment tool should facilitate a valid and reliable assessment involving health care and housing professionals, while also engaging and empowering consumers and their caregivers who may be dealing with multiple functional limitations. Unlike traditional paper-and-pencil assessments, which require extensive training and expert knowledge and can be alienating to consumers, mobile health (mHealth) apps have the potential to engage all parties involved, empowering and activating consumers to take action. However, little is known about which apps contain all the necessary functionality, quality appraisal, and accessibility. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the functionality, overall quality, and accessibility of mHealth home assessment apps. METHODS: mHealth apps enabling home assessment for aging in place were identified through a comprehensive search of scholarly articles, the Apple (iOS) and Google Play (Android) stores in the United States, and fnd.io. The search was conducted between November 2022 and January 2023 following a method adapted from PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Reviewers performed a content analysis of the mobile app features to evaluate their functionality, overall quality, and accessibility. The functionality assessment used a home assessment component matrix specifically developed for this study. For overall quality, the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) was used to determine the apps' effectiveness in engaging and activating consumers and their caregivers. Accessibility was assessed using the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 (A and AA levels). These 3 assessments were synthesized and visualized to provide a comprehensive evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 698 apps were initially identified. After further screening, only 6 apps remained. Our review revealed that none of the apps used thoroughly tested assessment tools, offered all the functionality required for reliable home assessment, achieved the "good" quality threshold as measured by the MARS, or met the accessibility criteria when evaluated against WCAG 2.1. However, DIYModify received the highest scores in both the overall quality and accessibility assessments. The MapIt apps also showed significant potential due to their ability to measure the 3D environment and the inclusion of a desktop version that extends the app's functionality. CONCLUSIONS: Our review revealed that there are very few apps available within the United States that possess the necessary functionality, engaging qualities, and accessibility to effectively activate consumers and their caregivers for successful home modification. Future app development should prioritize the integration of reliable and thoroughly tested assessment tools as the foundation of the development process. Furthermore, efforts should be made to enhance the overall quality and accessibility of these apps to better engage and empower consumers to take necessary actions to age in place.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".