While digital health solutions continue to grow in number and in complexity, the ability for stakeholders in healthcare to easily discern quality lags far behind. This challenge is in part due to the lack of a transparent and standardized approach to validation. Evaluation of mobile health applications (apps) is further burdened by low barriers to development and direct-to-user marketing, leading to a crowded and confusing landscape. In this context, we investigated the pragmatic application of a previously described framework for digital health validation, the Digital Health Scorecard, in a cohort of 22 popular mobile health oncology apps. The apps evaluated using this framework performed poorly, scoring 49.4% across all evaluation criteria as a group. Performance across component domains varied considerably with cost scoring highest at 100%, usability at 56.7%, technical at 37.3%, and clinical at 15.9%. satisfaction of prospectively determined end-user requirements derived from patient, family, and clinician consensus scored 37.2%. While cost outperformed consistently and usability was adequate, the results also suggested that apps suffered from significant technical limitations, were of limited clinical value, and generally did not do what end users wanted. These large gaps further support the need for transparent and standardized evaluation to help all stakeholders in healthcare improve the quality of mobile health.

尽管数字健康解决方案的数量和复杂性不断增长，但医疗保健领域的利益相关者轻松辨别质量的能力却远远落后。这一挑战的部分原因是缺乏透明和标准化的验证方法。低发展障碍和直接面向用户的营销进一步加重了移动健康应用程序（App）的评估负担，导致了拥挤和混乱的局面。在此背景下，我们研究了先前描述的数字健康验证框架（数字健康记分卡）在 22 个流行的移动健康肿瘤学应用程序中的实用应用。使用此框架评估的应用程序表现不佳，在所有评估标准中作为一个整体得分为 49.4%。各个组件领域的性能差异很大，成本得分最高为 100%，可用性为 56.7%，技术为 37.3%，临床为 15.9%。来自患者、家属和临床医生共识的前瞻性最终用户需求满意度得分为 37.2%。虽然成本始终表现出色且可用性足够，但结果还表明应用程序受到重大技术限制，临床价值有限，并且通常不能满足最终用户的需求。这些巨大的差距进一步支持了透明和标准化评估的需求，以帮助医疗保健领域的所有利益相关者提高移动医疗的质量。