The Laryngoscope · 2022
Are Mobile Applications in Laryngology Designed for All Patients?
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Odigie Eseosa, Andreadis Katerina, Chandra Iyra, Mocchetti Valentina, Rives Hal, Cox Steven, Rameau Anaïs
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Mobile applications (apps) are multiplying in laryngology, with little standardization of content, functionality, or accessibility. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality, functionality, health literacy, readability, accessibility, and inclusivity of laryngology mobile applications.
METHODS: Of the 3230 apps identified from the Apple and Google Play stores, 28 patient-facing apps met inclusion criteria. Apps were evaluated using validated scales assessing quality and functionality: the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and the Institute for Healthcare Informatics App Functionality Scale. The Clear Communication Index (CDC) Institute of Medicine Strategies for Creating Health Literate Mobile Applications, and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) were used to evaluate apps health literacy level. Readability was assessed using established readability formulas. Apps were evaluated for language, accessibility features, and representation of a diverse population.
RESULTS: Twenty-six apps (92%) had adequate quality (MARS score > 3). The mean PEMAT score was 89% for actionability and 86% for understandability. On average, apps utilized 25/33 health literate strategies. Twenty-two apps (79%) did not pass the CDC index threshold of 90% for health literacy. Twenty-four app descriptions (86%) were above an 8th grade reading level. Only 4 apps (14%) showed diverse representation, 3 (11%) had non-English language functions, and 2 (7%) offered subtitles. Inter-rater reliability for MARS was adequate (CA-ICC = 0.715).
CONCLUSION: While most apps scored well in quality and functionality, many laryngology apps did not meet standards for health literacy. Most apps were written at a reading level above the national average, lacked accessibility features, and did not represent diverse populations. Laryngoscope, 133:1540-1549, 2023.
METHODS: Of the 3230 apps identified from the Apple and Google Play stores, 28 patient-facing apps met inclusion criteria. Apps were evaluated using validated scales assessing quality and functionality: the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and the Institute for Healthcare Informatics App Functionality Scale. The Clear Communication Index (CDC) Institute of Medicine Strategies for Creating Health Literate Mobile Applications, and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) were used to evaluate apps health literacy level. Readability was assessed using established readability formulas. Apps were evaluated for language, accessibility features, and representation of a diverse population.
RESULTS: Twenty-six apps (92%) had adequate quality (MARS score > 3). The mean PEMAT score was 89% for actionability and 86% for understandability. On average, apps utilized 25/33 health literate strategies. Twenty-two apps (79%) did not pass the CDC index threshold of 90% for health literacy. Twenty-four app descriptions (86%) were above an 8th grade reading level. Only 4 apps (14%) showed diverse representation, 3 (11%) had non-English language functions, and 2 (7%) offered subtitles. Inter-rater reliability for MARS was adequate (CA-ICC = 0.715).
CONCLUSION: While most apps scored well in quality and functionality, many laryngology apps did not meet standards for health literacy. Most apps were written at a reading level above the national average, lacked accessibility features, and did not represent diverse populations. Laryngoscope, 133:1540-1549, 2023.