Blog
About

24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Review and Analysis of Existing Mobile Phone Apps to Support Heart Failure Symptom Monitoring and Self-Care Management Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS)

      , PhD, MSc, RN , 1 , , MD 2 , 3 , , BSN, MPH, RN 1 , 1 , , EdD, FNP, ANP, FAHA, FAAN 3 , , PhD, MPH, RN 1

      (Reviewer), (Reviewer)

      JMIR mHealth and uHealth

      JMIR Publications

      mobile apps, mobile health, heart failure, self-care, self-management, review, symptom assessment, nursing informatics

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Heart failure is the most common cause of hospital readmissions among Medicare beneficiaries and these hospitalizations are often driven by exacerbations in common heart failure symptoms. Patient collaboration with health care providers and decision making is a core component of increasing symptom monitoring and decreasing hospital use. Mobile phone apps offer a potentially cost-effective solution for symptom monitoring and self-care management at the point of need.

          Objective

          The purpose of this review of commercially available apps was to identify and assess the functionalities of patient-facing mobile health apps targeted toward supporting heart failure symptom monitoring and self-care management.

          Methods

          We searched 3 Web-based mobile app stores using multiple terms and combinations (eg, “heart failure,” “cardiology,” “heart failure and self-management”). Apps meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics functionality scores, and Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) guidelines for nonpharmacologic management. Apps were downloaded and assessed independently by 2-4 reviewers, interclass correlations between reviewers were calculated, and consensus was met by discussion.

          Results

          Of 3636 potentially relevant apps searched, 34 met inclusion criteria. Most apps were excluded because they were unrelated to heart failure, not in English or Spanish, or were games. Interrater reliability between reviewers was high. AskMD app had the highest average MARS total (4.9/5). More than half of the apps (23/34, 68%) had acceptable MARS scores (>3.0). Heart Failure Health Storylines (4.6) and AskMD (4.5) had the highest scores for behavior change. Factoring MARS, functionality, and HFSA guideline scores, the highest performing apps included Heart Failure Health Storylines, Symple, ContinuousCare Health App, WebMD, and AskMD. Peer-reviewed publications were identified for only 3 of the 34 apps.

          Conclusions

          This review suggests that few apps meet prespecified criteria for quality, content, or functionality, highlighting the need for further refinement and mapping to evidence-based guidelines and room for overall quality improvement in heart failure symptom monitoring and self-care related apps.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          HFSA 2010 Comprehensive Heart Failure Practice Guideline.

          Heart failure (HF) is a syndrome characterized by high mortality, frequent hospitalization, reduced quality of life, and a complex therapeutic regimen. Knowledge about HF is accumulating so rapidly that individual clinicians may be unable to readily and adequately synthesize new information into effective strategies of care for patients with this syndrome. Trial data, though valuable, often do not give direction for individual patient management. These characteristics make HF an ideal candidate for practice guidelines. The 2010 Heart Failure Society of America comprehensive practice guideline addresses the full range of evaluation, care, and management of patients with HF. Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier Inc.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Mobile Applications for Diabetics: A Systematic Review and Expert-Based Usability Evaluation Considering the Special Requirements of Diabetes Patients Age 50 Years or Older

            Background A multitude of mhealth (mobile health) apps have been developed in recent years to support effective self-management of patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 or 2. Objective We carried out a systematic review of all currently available diabetes apps for the operating systems iOS and Android. We considered the number of newly released diabetes apps, range of functions, target user groups, languages, acquisition costs, user ratings, available interfaces, and the connection between acquisition costs and user ratings. Additionally, we examined whether the available applications serve the special needs of diabetes patients aged 50 or older by performing an expert-based usability evaluation. Methods We identified relevant keywords, comparative categories, and their specifications. Subsequently, we performed the app review based on the information given in the Google Play Store, the Apple App Store, and the apps themselves. In addition, we carried out an expert-based usability evaluation based on a representative 10% sample of diabetes apps. Results In total, we analyzed 656 apps finding that 355 (54.1%) offered just one function and 348 (53.0%) provided a documentation function. The dominating app language was English (85.4%, 560/656), patients represented the main user group (96.0%, 630/656), and the analysis of the costs revealed a trend toward free apps (53.7%, 352/656). The median price of paid apps was €1.90. The average user rating was 3.6 stars (maximum 5). Our analyses indicated no clear differences in the user rating between free and paid apps. Only 30 (4.6%) of the 656 available diabetes apps offered an interface to a measurement device. We evaluated 66 apps within the usability evaluation. On average, apps were rated best regarding the criterion “comprehensibility” (4.0 out of 5.0), while showing a lack of “fault tolerance” (2.8 out of 5.0). Of the 66 apps, 48 (72.7%) offered the ability to read the screen content aloud. The number of functions was significantly negative correlated with usability. The presence of documentation and analysis functions reduced the usability score significantly by 0.36 and 0.21 points. Conclusions A vast number of diabetes apps already exist, but the majority offer similar functionalities and combine only one to two functions in one app. Patients and physicians alike should be involved in the app development process to a greater extent. We expect that the data transmission of health parameters to physicians will gain more importance in future applications. The usability of diabetes apps for patients aged 50 or older was moderate to good. But this result applied mainly to apps offering a small range of functions. Multifunctional apps performed considerably worse in terms of usability. Moreover, the presence of a documentation or analysis function resulted in significantly lower usability scores. The operability of accessibility features for diabetes apps was quite limited, except for the feature “screen reader”.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Finding a Depression App: A Review and Content Analysis of the Depression App Marketplace

              Background Depression is highly prevalent and causes considerable suffering and disease burden despite the existence of wide-ranging treatment options. Mobile phone apps offer the potential to help close this treatment gap by confronting key barriers to accessing support for depression. Objectives Our goal was to identify and characterize the different types of mobile phone depression apps available in the marketplace. Methods A search for depression apps was conducted on the app stores of the five major mobile phone platforms: Android, iPhone, BlackBerry, Nokia, and Windows. Apps were included if they focused on depression and were available to people who self-identify as having depression. Data were extracted from the app descriptions found in the app stores. Results Of the 1054 apps identified by the search strategy, nearly one-quarter (23.0%, 243/1054) unique depression apps met the inclusion criteria. Over one-quarter (27.7%, 210/758) of the excluded apps failed to mention depression in the title or description. Two-thirds of the apps had as their main purpose providing therapeutic treatment (33.7%, 82/243) or psychoeducation (32.1%, 78/243). The other main purpose categories were medical assessment (16.9%, 41/243), symptom management (8.2%, 20/243), and supportive resources (1.6%, 4/243). A majority of the apps failed to sufficiently describe their organizational affiliation (65.0%, 158/243) and content source (61.7%, 150/243). There was a significant relationship (χ 2 5=50.5, P<.001) between the main purpose of the app and the reporting of content source, with most medical assessment apps reporting their content source (80.5%, 33/41). A fifth of the apps featured an e-book (20.6%, 50/243), audio therapy (16.9%, 41/243), or screening (16.9%, 41/243) function. Most apps had a dynamic user interface (72.4%, 176/243) and used text as the main type of media (51.9%, 126/243), and over a third (14.4%, 35/243) incorporated more than one form of media. Conclusion Without guidance, finding an appropriate depression app may be challenging, as the search results yielded non-depression–specific apps to depression apps at a 3:1 ratio. Inadequate reporting of organization affiliation and content source increases the difficulty of assessing the credibility and reliability of the app. While certification and vetting initiatives are underway, this study demonstrates the need for standardized reporting in app stores to help consumers select appropriate tools, particularly among those classified as medical devices.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMU
                JMIR mHealth and uHealth
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2291-5222
                Apr-Jun 2016
                14 June 2016
                : 4
                : 2
                Affiliations
                1Columbia University School of Nursing New York, NYUnited States
                2College of Physicians & Surgeons Columbia University New York, NYUnited States
                3NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center Division of Cardiology New York, NYUnited States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Ruth M. Masterson Creber rm3284@ 123456cumc.columbia.edu
                Article
                v4i2e74
                10.2196/mhealth.5882
                4925936
                27302310
                ©Ruth M. Masterson Creber, Mathew S. Maurer, Meghan Reading, Grenny Hiraldo, Kathleen T. Hickey, Sarah Iribarren. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 14.06.2016.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mhealth and uhealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Similar content 86

                Cited by 42

                Most referenced authors 1,229