Table 7.
Comparison of evaluation outcomes used in the original 2015 study and this study.
| Instrument | This study (47 apps and 59 evaluations) | 2015 study (46 apps and 46 evaluations) | ||
| Content evaluation tool (%), median (IQR) | ||||
|
|
Coverage of information | 64 (40-87) | 65 (58-71) | |
|
|
Depth of information | 48 (32-67) | Reported graphically | |
| App quality using Quality Component Scoring System (scored out of 100%) | ||||
|
|
Median (IQR) | Not undertaken | 49 (41-60) | |
|
|
Proportion rated poor (<50% score) | Not undertaken | 91 | |
| App quality using Mobile App Rating Scale (scored out of 5 points) | ||||
|
|
Objective scale | |||
|
|
|
Median (IQR) | 3.63 (3.24-3.99) | Not developed at the time of writing |
|
|
|
Proportion rated poor (%, ≤2.5 score) | 2 | Not developed at the time of writing |
|
|
Modified scale | |||
|
|
|
Median (IQR) | 3.41 (2.99-3.64) | Not developed at the time of writing |
|
|
|
Proportion rated poor (%, ≤2.5 score) | 7 | Not developed at the time of writing |
|
|
Subjective scale | |||
|
|
|
Median (IQR) | 2.50 (2.0-3.5) | Not developed at the time of writing |
|
|
|
Proportion rated poor (%, ≤2.5 score) | 54 | Not developed at the time of writing |
| Suitability Assessment of Material (%) | ||||
|
|
Superior overall (70%-100%) | 44 | 15 | |
|
|
Adequate overall (40%-69%) | 53 | 39 | |
|
|
Not suitable (0%-39%) | 3 | 42 | |
| Readability, median (IQR) | ||||
|
|
Flesch-Kincaid online tool | 8 (6-10) | 8 (7-10) | |
|
|
Flesch-Kincaid Word tool | 8 (6-9) | 8 (7-10) | |
|
|
Simple Measure of Gobbledygook | 8 (6-9) | 7 (7-8) | |