Title |
Evaluating and selecting mobile health apps: strategies for healthcare providers and healthcare organizations
|
---|---|
Published in |
Translational Behavioral Medicine, September 2014
|
DOI | 10.1007/s13142-014-0293-9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Edwin D Boudreaux, Molly E Waring, Rashelle B Hayes, Rajani S Sadasivam, Sean Mullen, Sherry Pagoto |
Abstract |
Mobile applications (apps) to improve health are proliferating, but before healthcare providers or organizations can recommend an app to the patients they serve, they need to be confident the app will be user-friendly and helpful for the target disease or behavior. This paper summarizes seven strategies for evaluating and selecting health-related apps: (1) Review the scientific literature, (2) Search app clearinghouse websites, (3) Search app stores, (4) Review app descriptions, user ratings, and reviews, (5) Conduct a social media query within professional and, if available, patient networks, (6) Pilot the apps, and (7) Elicit feedback from patients. The paper concludes with an illustrative case example. Because of the enormous range of quality among apps, strategies for evaluating them will be necessary for adoption to occur in a way that aligns with core values in healthcare, such as the Hippocratic principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 17 | 32% |
United Kingdom | 7 | 13% |
Ecuador | 3 | 6% |
Ireland | 3 | 6% |
Australia | 2 | 4% |
France | 1 | 2% |
Italy | 1 | 2% |
Belgium | 1 | 2% |
India | 1 | 2% |
Other | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 16 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 30 | 57% |
Scientists | 12 | 23% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 17% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | <1% |
Portugal | 1 | <1% |
Turkey | 1 | <1% |
Hungary | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Finland | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 555 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 119 | 21% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 73 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 63 | 11% |
Researcher | 54 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 33 | 6% |
Other | 112 | 20% |
Unknown | 110 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 109 | 19% |
Computer Science | 83 | 15% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 54 | 10% |
Psychology | 40 | 7% |
Social Sciences | 32 | 6% |
Other | 113 | 20% |
Unknown | 133 | 24% |