Journal of Medical Systems

, 37:9976 | Cite as

Development and Evaluation of Tools for Measuring the Quality of Experience (QoE) in mHealth Applications

  • Borja Martínez-Pérez
  • Isabel de la Torre-Díez
  • Sonia Candelas-Plasencia
  • Miguel López-Coronado
Original Paper


The rapid spread of smartphones and tablets in the last years has created a new software industry whose fast growth has propitiated numerous low-quality applications to be revised and improved. The main aim of this paper is to develop a tool to assess the Quality of Experience (QoE) of mobile Health (mHealth) applications in order to improve the quality of the existing apps and the ones to be released. Firstly, a review of the applications of mHealth has been done in order to obtain a general classification. Secondly, the tool for measuring the QoE is developed in the form of a survey with the help of psychologists. Finally, this tool is evaluated using a sample of applications selected with the aid of the classification obtained. A survey with 21 questions using the Likert scale and destined to users has been successfully created, and its evaluation has been positive, resulting in a good method for measuring the QoE of the different features that the applications in the field of health care usually have. The tool created can be very useful for developers in order to assess the quality of their health care apps, indicating their positive aspects and the ones which must be revised and improved, avoiding the releasing of low-quality apps.


Evaluation Likert mHealth Quality of Experience (QoE) Survey 



Quality of experience


Mobile health


Mean opinion score


  1. 1.
    Rai, A., Chen, L., Pye, J., and Baird, A., Understanding determinants of consumer mobile health usage intentions, assimilation, and channel preferences. J. Med. Internet Res. 15(8):e149, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kumar, S., Nilsen, W. J., Abernethy, A., Atienza, A., Patrick, K., Pavel, M., et al., Mobile health technology evaluation: The mHealth evidence workshop. Am. J. Prev. Med. 45(2):228–236, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fiordelli, M., Diviani, N., and Schulz, P. J., Mapping mHealth research: A decade of evolution. J. Med. Internet Res. 15(5):e95, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    IDC, Press Release: Strong Demand for Smartphones and Heated Vendor Competition Characterize the Worldwide Mobile Phone Market at the End of 2012. Accessed 27 June 2013, 2013.
  5. 5.
    IDC, IDC Raises its Worldwide Tablet Forecast on Continued Strong Demand and Forthcoming New Product Launches. Accessed 27 June 2013, 2012.
  6. 6.
    Rowinski, D., The Data Doesn’t Lie: iOS Apps Are Better Than Android. Readwrite Mobile. Accessed 27 June 2013, 2013
  7. 7.
    Jones, C., Apple and Google Continue to Gain US Smartphone Market Share. Forbes. Accessed 27 June 2013, 2013.
  8. 8.
    Google, Google Play. Accessed 27 June 2013, 2013.
  9. 9.
    Apple, iTunes. Accessed 27 June, 2013.
  10. 10.
    Laghari, K. U. R., and Connelly, K., Toward total quality of experience: A QoE model in a communication ecosystem. Commun. Mag. IEEE 50(4):58–65, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oyman, O., and Singh, S., Quality of experience for HTTP adaptive streaming services. Commun. Mag. IEEE 50(4):20–27, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balachandran, A., Sekar, V., Akella, A., Seshan, S., Stoica, I., Zhang, H., A quest for an Internet video quality-of-experience metric. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-XI). New York, NY, USA: ACM 97–102, 2012. doi:10.1145/2390231.2390248.
  13. 13.
    Vissers, P. A., Thong, M. S., Pouwer, F., Zanders, M. M., Coebergh, J. W., van de Poll-Franse, L. V. The impact of comorbidity on health-related quality of life among cancer survivors: analyses of data from the PROFILES registry. J. Cancer Surviv. 2013 Aug 6. doi:10.1007/s11764-013-0299-1.
  14. 14.
    Agboma, F., and Liotta, A., Quality of experience management in mobile content delivery systems. Telecommun. Syst. 49(1):85–98, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ickin, S., Wac, K., Fiedler, M., Janowski, L., Jin-Hyuk, H., and Dey, A. K., Factors influencing quality of experience of commonly used mobile applications. Commun. Mag. IEEE 50(4):48–56, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    BlackBerry, BlackBerry World. Accessed 27 June 2013, 2013.
  17. 17.
    International Telecommunication Union, P.800.1: Mean Opinion Score (MOS) Terminology. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, 2006.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rahrer, T., Fiandra, R., Wright, S., Technical Report TR-126 Triple-play Services Quality of Experience (QoE) Requirements. Digital Subscriber Line Forum. 2006.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Castillo, P. A., Reanimación Cardiorespiratoria. Google Play. Accessed 27 June 2013, 2012.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    IBM, IBM SPSS Statistics. Accessed 27 June 2013, 2013.
  33. 33.
    McLeod, S., Likert Scale. Simply Psychology. Accessed 27 June 2013, 2008.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Borja Martínez-Pérez
    • 1
  • Isabel de la Torre-Díez
    • 1
  • Sonia Candelas-Plasencia
    • 1
  • Miguel López-Coronado
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Signal Theory and Communications, and Telematics EngineeringUniversity of ValladolidValladolidSpain

Personalised recommendations