Evaluation Criteria for Weight Management Apps: Validation Using a Modified Delphi Process
| Autor: | G. Paluzie, Guillem Cuatrecasas Cambra, Francesc Saigí-Rubió, Mariona Balfegó, Montse Moharra, Alberto Zamora, Carme Carrion, Noemí Robles, Elisa Puigdomenech Puig, Corpus Gómez-Calderón |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Prioritization
Adult Male obesity Consensus Delphi Technique Clinical effectiveness Delphi method Modified delphi Health Informatics Information technology Young Adult Weight management Weight Loss Humans overweight Operations management mHealth Aged Original Paper business.industry Reproducibility of Results Usability Middle Aged technology assessment T58.5-58.64 Health indicator Treatment Outcome Female Public aspects of medicine RA1-1270 business Psychology |
| Zdroj: | JMIR mHealth and uHealth JMIR mHealth and uHealth, Vol 8, Iss 7, p e16899 (2020) |
| ISSN: | 2291-5222 |
| Popis: | Background The use of apps for weight management has increased over recent years; however, there is a lack of evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these apps. The EVALAPPS project will develop and validate an assessment instrument to specifically assess the safety and efficacy of weight management apps. Objective The aim of this study was to reach a consensus among stakeholders on a comprehensive set of criteria to guide development of the EVALAPPS assessment instrument. A modified Delphi process was used in order to verify the robustness of the criteria that had been identified through a literature review and to prioritize a set of the identified criteria. Methods Stakeholders (n=31) were invited to participate in a 2-round Delphi process with 114 initial criteria that had been identified from the literature. In round 1, participants rated criteria according to relevance on a scale from 0 (“I suggest this criterion is excluded”) to 5 (“This criterion is extremely relevant”). A criterion was accepted if the median rating was 4 or higher and if the relative intraquartile range was equal to 0.67 or lower. In round 2, participants were asked about criteria that had been discarded in round 1. A prioritization strategy was used to identify crucial criteria according to (1) the importance attributed by participants (criteria with a mean rating of 4.00 or higher), (2) the level of consensus (criteria with a score of 4 or 5 by at least 80% of the participants). Results The response rate was 83.9% (26/31) in round 1 and 90.3% (28/31) in round 2. A total of 107 out of 114 criteria (93.9%) were accepted by consensus—105 criteria in round 1 and 2 criteria in round 2. After prioritization, 53 criteria were deemed crucial. These related mainly to the dimensions of security and privacy (13/53, 24.5%) and usability (9/53, 17.0%), followed by activity data (5/53, 9.4%), clinical effectiveness (5/53, 9.4%), and reliability (5/53, 9.4%). Conclusions Results confirmed the robustness of the criteria that were identified, with those relating to security and privacy being deemed most relevant by stakeholders. Additionally, a specific set of criteria based on health indicators (activity data, physical state data, and personal data) was also prioritized. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|