Blog
About

11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mobile Apps for Oral Health Promotion: Content Review and Heuristic Usability Analysis

      , MS 1 , , MPH 1 , , PhD 2 , , PhD , 1

      (Reviewer), (Reviewer)

      JMIR mHealth and uHealth

      JMIR Publications

      oral health, oral hygiene, dental care, mobile health, eHealth, review

      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

          There has been an increase in consumer-facing mobile health (mHealth) apps in recent years. Prior reviews have characterized the availability, usability, or quality of popular mHealth apps targeting a range of health behaviors, but none has examined apps that promote better oral health care. Oral disease affects billions of people worldwide and mobile phone use is on the rise, so the market for well-designed and effective oral health apps is substantial.

          Objective

          We examined the content and usability of popular oral health promotion apps to better understand the current state of these self-help interventions and inform the need and opportunity for future app development.

          Methods

          Between February and March 2018, we identified oral health-focused apps that were designed for Android or iOS, available in English, and targeted adult consumers (as opposed to children or dental health professionals). The sample was limited to the most popular and highly rated apps on each platform. For each app reviewed, we assessed its basic descriptive characteristics (eg, platform, cost), evidence of a theoretical basis or empirical validation, key program functionality, and the extent to which the app addressed diet and tobacco and alcohol use as risk factors for oral disease. We characterized the framing (ie, gain vs loss) of all persuasive messaging and conducted a heuristic analysis to assess each app’s usability as a persuasive health technology.

          Results

          Thirty-three apps were eligible for review based on the selection criteria. Two-thirds (22/33, 67%) were geared toward the general public as opposed to dental clinic patients, insurance plan members, or owners of specific electric toothbrushes. Most (31/33, 94%) were free to download, and a majority (19/33, 58%) were sponsored by software developers as opposed to oral health experts. None offered any theoretical basis for the content or had been empirically validated. Common program features included tools for tracking or reminding one to brush their teeth and assistance scheduling dental appointments. Nineteen apps (58%) included educational or persuasive content intended to influence oral health behavior. Only 32% (6/19) of these included a larger proportion of gain-framed than loss-framed messaging. Most of the apps did not mention diet, alcohol or tobacco—important risk factors for oral disease. Overall, the apps performed poorly on standard usability heuristics recommended for persuasive health technologies.

          Conclusions

          The quality of the reviewed apps was generally poor. Important opportunities exist to develop oral health promotion apps that have theoretically grounded content, are empirically validated, and adhere to good design principles for persuasive health technologies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 18

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

          Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk

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

            Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing.

            Health-relevant communications can be framed in terms of the benefits (gains) or costs (losses) associated with a particular behavior, and the framing of such persuasive messages influences health decision making. Although to ask people to consider a health issue in terms of associated costs is considered an effective way to motivate behavior, empirical findings are inconsistent. In evaluating the effectiveness of framed health messages, investigators must appreciate the context in which health-related decisions are made. The influence of framed information on decision making is contingent on people, first, internalizing the advocated frame and, then, on the degree to which performing a health behavior is perceived as risky. The relative effectiveness of gain-framed or loss-framed appeals depends, in part, on whether a behavior serves an illness-detecting or a health-affirming function. Finally, the authors discuss the cognitive and affective processes that may mediate the influence of framed information on judgment and behavior.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: a meta-analytic review.

              A meta-analytic review of 93 studies (N = 21,656) finds that in disease prevention messages, gain-framed appeals, which emphasize the advantages of compliance with the communicator's recommendation, are statistically significantly more persuasive than loss-framed appeals, which emphasize the disadvantages of noncompliance. This difference is quite small (corresponding to r = .03), however, and appears attributable to a relatively large (and statistically significant) effect for messages advocating dental hygiene behaviors. Despite very good statistical power, the analysis finds no statistically significant differences in persuasiveness between gain- and loss-framed messages concerning other preventive actions such as safer-sex behaviors, skin cancer prevention behaviors, or diet and nutrition behaviors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMU
                JMIR mHealth and uHealth
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2291-5222
                September 2018
                04 September 2018
                : 6
                : 9
                Affiliations
                1 Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute Seattle, WA United States
                2 Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing University of California, Davis Sacramento, CA United States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Jennifer B McClure Jennifer.B.McClure@ 123456kp.org
                Article
                v6i9e11432
                10.2196/11432
                6231784
                30181114
                ©Brooks Tiffany, Paula Blasi, Sheryl L Catz, Jennifer B McClure. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 04.09.2018.

                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.

                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                Comments

                Comment on this article