Mobile Apps for Blood Pressure Monitoring: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis

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

Using a mobile app for self-management could make it easier for patients to get insight into their blood pressure patterns. However, little is known about the availability, quality, and features of mobile apps targeting blood pressure.

Objective

The goal of the research was to determine the availability, functionality, and quality of mobile apps that could be used for blood pressure monitoring purposes.

Methods

A systematic app search was performed based on the standards for systematic reviews. We searched the Dutch official app stores for Android and iOS platforms using predefined keywords and included all English and Dutch mobile apps targeting blood pressure. Two independent assessors determined eligibility and quality of the apps using the 5-point Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Quality scores of the apps with and without 17 a priori selected characteristics were compared using independent sample t tests.

Results

A total of 184 apps (104 Android, 80 iOS) met the inclusion criteria. The mean overall MARS score was 2.63 (95% CI 2.55-2.71) for Android and 2.64 (95% CI 2.56-2.71) for iOS. The apps Bloeddruk (4.1) and AMICOMED BP (3.6) had the highest quality scores on the Android and iOS platforms, respectively. Of the app characteristics recorded, only pricing, in-app advertisements, and local data storage were not associated with the quality scores. In only 3.8% (7/184) of the apps, involvement of medical experts in its development was mentioned, whereas none of the apps was formally evaluated with results published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Conclusions

This study provides an overview of the best apps currently available in the app stores and important key features for self-management that can be used by health care providers and patients with hypertension to identify a suitable app targeting blood pressure monitoring. However, the majority of the apps targeting blood pressure monitoring were of poor quality. Therefore, it is important to involve medical experts in the developmental stage of health-related mobile apps to improve the quality of these apps.

Related collections

Most cited references 24

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests

Lee Cronbach (1951)

Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334

0 comments Cited 6118 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 2, Short-term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomised drug trials in their epidemiological context.

R. Collins, R. Peto, S MacMahon … (1990)

There are 14 unconfounded randomised trials of antihypertensive drugs (chiefly diuretics or beta-blockers): total 37,000 individuals, mean treatment duration 5 years, mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) difference 5-6 mm Hg. In prospective observational studies, a long-term difference of 5-6 mm Hg in usual DBP is associated with about 35-40% less stroke and 20-25% less coronary heart disease (CHD). For those dying in the trials, the DBP difference had persisted only 2-3 years, yet an overview showed that vascular mortality was significantly reduced (2p less than 0.0002); non-vascular mortality appeared unchanged. Stroke was reduced by 42% SD 6 (95% confidence interval 35-50%; 289 vs 484 events, 2p less than 0.0001), suggesting that virtually all the epidemiologically expected stroke reduction appears rapidly. CHD was reduced by 14% SD 5 (95% CI 4-22%; 671 vs 771 events, 2p less than 0.01), suggesting that just over half the epidemiologically expected CHD reduction appears rapidly. Although this significant CHD reduction could well be worthwhile, its size remains indefinite for most circumstances (though beta-blockers after myocardial infarction are of substantial benefit). At present, therefore, a sufficiently high risk of stroke (perhaps because of age, blood pressure, or, in particular, history of cerebrovascular disease) may be the clearest indication for antihypertensive treatment.

0 comments Cited 179 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Blood pressure control by home monitoring: meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Francesco Cappuccio, Sally M. Kerry, Lindsay K. Forbes … (2004)

To determine the effect of home blood pressure monitoring on blood pressure levels and proportion of people with essential hypertension achieving targets. Meta-analysis of 18 randomised controlled trials. 1359 people with essential hypertension allocated to home blood pressure monitoring and 1355 allocated to the "control" group seen in the healthcare system for 2-36 months. Differences in systolic (13 studies), diastolic (16 studies), or mean (3 studies) blood pressures, and proportion of patients achieving targets (6 studies), between intervention and control groups. Systolic blood pressure was lower in people with hypertension who had home blood pressure monitoring than in those who had standard blood pressure monitoring in the healthcare system (standardised mean difference 4.2 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 6.9) mm Hg), diastolic blood pressure was lower by 2.4 (1.2 to 3.5) mm Hg, and mean blood pressure was lower by 4.4 (2.0 to 6.8) mm Hg. The relative risk of blood pressure above predetermined targets was lower in people with home blood pressure monitoring (risk ratio 0.90, 0.80 to 1.00). When publication bias was allowed for, the differences were attenuated: 2.2 (-0.9 to 5.3) mm Hg for systolic blood pressure and 1.9 (0.6 to 3.2) mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure. Blood pressure control in people with hypertension (assessed in the clinic) and the proportion achieving targets are increased when home blood pressure monitoring is used rather than standard blood pressure monitoring in the healthcare system. The reasons for this are not clear. The difference in blood pressure control between the two methods is small but likely to contribute to an important reduction in vascular complications in the hypertensive population.

0 comments Cited 107 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Hussein Jamaladin:

Department for Health EvidenceRadboud Institute for Health SciencesRadboud University Medical CenterGeert Grooteplein-Noord 21Nijmegen,Netherlands31 024 366684hussein.jamaladin@radboudumc.nl

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0677-1186

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

Journal ID (publisher-id): JMU

Title: JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Publisher: JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )

ISSN (Electronic): 2291-5222

Publication date Collection: November 2018

Publication date (Electronic): 14 November 2018

Volume: 6

Issue: 11

Electronic Location Identifier: e187

Affiliations

[1 ] Department for Health Evidence Radboud Institute for Health Sciences Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen Netherlands

[2 ] Radboud REshape Innovation Center Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen Netherlands

[3 ] Department of Internal Medicine Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen Netherlands

Author notes

Corresponding Author: Hussein Jamaladin hussein.jamaladin@ 123456radboudumc.nl

Author information

Hussein Jamaladin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0677-1186

Tom H van de Belt http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5401-8973

Lianda CH Luijpers http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8358-6400

Falco R de Graaff http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9652-5199

Sebastian JH Bredie http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6973-7540

Nel Roeleveld http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3390-4466

Marleen MHJ van Gelder http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4853-4434

Article

Publisher ID: v6i11e187

DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.9888

PMC ID: 6262205

PubMed ID: 30429116

SO-VID: a42241aa-8590-43d2-aafb-9bd85d7ae1b8

Copyright © ©Hussein Jamaladin, Tom H van de Belt, Lianda CH Luijpers, Falco R de Graaff, Sebastian JH Bredie, Nel Roeleveld, Marleen MHJ van Gelder. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 14.11.2018.

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 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.

History

Date received : 19 January 2018

Date revision requested : 1 March 2018

Date revision received : 26 April 2018

Date accepted : 6 July 2018

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 29

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 1,488

See all reference authors

Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
- celebrating 25 years of open access