↓ Skip to main content

A Framework to Assist Health Professionals in Recommending High-Quality Apps for Supporting Chronic Disease Self-Management: Illustrative Assessment of Type 2 Diabetes Apps

Overview of attention for article published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Framework to Assist Health Professionals in Recommending High-Quality Apps for Supporting Chronic Disease Self-Management: Illustrative Assessment of Type 2 Diabetes Apps
Published in
JMIR mHealth and uHealth, September 2015
DOI 10.2196/mhealth.4532
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelli Hale, Sandra Capra, Judith Bauer

Abstract

This paper presents an approach to assist health professionals in recommending high quality apps for supporting chronic disease self-management. Most app reviews focus on popularity, aesthetics, functionality, usability, and information quality. There is no doubt these factors are important in selecting trustworthy apps which are appealing to users, but behavioral theory may be also be useful in matching the apps to user needs. The framework developed aims to be methodologically sound, capable of selecting popular apps which include content covered by evidence-based programs, consistent with behavioral theory, as well as a patient-centered approach for matching apps to patients' individual needs. A single disease-type 2 diabetes-was selected to illustrate how the framework can be applied as this was deemed to represent the types of strategies used in many chronic diseases. A systematic approach based on behavioral theory and recommendations from best practice guidelines was developed for matching apps to patients' needs. In March 2014, a series of search strategies was used to identify top-rated iPhone and Android health apps, representing 29 topics from five categories of type 2 diabetes self-management strategies. The topics were chosen from published international guidelines for the management of diabetes. The senior author (KH) assessed the most popular apps found that addressed these topics using the Behavioral Theory Content Survey (BTS), which is based on traditional behavioral theory. A tool to assist decision making when using apps was developed and trialed with health professionals for ease of use and understanding. A total of 14 apps were assessed representing all five topic categories of self-management. Total theoretical scores (BTS scores) were less than 50 on a 100-point scale for all apps. Each app scored less than 50% of the total possible BTS score for all four behavioral theories and for most of the 20 behavioral strategies; however, apps scored higher than 50% of the total possible BTS score for specific strategies related to their primary focus. Our findings suggest that the apps studied would be more effective when used in conjunction with therapy than as stand-alone apps. Apps were categorized according to topic and core intervention strategies. A framework for matching apps to identified patient needs was developed based on app categorization and principles of patient-centered care. The approach was well accepted and understood by a convenience sample of health practitioners. The framework presented can be used by health practitioners to better match apps with client needs. Some apps incorporate highly interactive strategies of behavioral theory, and when used as an adjunct may increase patient participation and the effectiveness of therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 171 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 18%
Researcher 29 17%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Other 30 17%
Unknown 37 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 26%
Computer Science 18 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Social Sciences 13 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 43 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2015.
All research outputs
#4,282,674
of 23,798,792 outputs
Outputs from JMIR mHealth and uHealth
#843
of 2,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,857
of 269,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JMIR mHealth and uHealth
#12
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,798,792 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.