ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2016
Characterization of Apps and Other e-Tools for Medication Use: Insights Into Possible Benefits and Risks.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring mobile applications for oral health promotion: a randomized clinical trial.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2026Trial
- Use of mobile technology for reporting the pharmacovigilance of vaccines in Panama.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- The Definitions of Health Apps and Medical Apps From the Perspective of Public Health and Law: Qualitative Analysis of an Interdisciplinary Literature Overview.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Review
- Observational
- Developments in Privacy and Data Ownership in Mobile Health Technologies, 2016-2019.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2020Review
- Impact of Illness on Electronic Health Use (The Seventh Tromsø Study - Part 2): Population-Based Questionnaire Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- The Health-e Babies App for antenatal education: Feasibility for socially disadvantaged women.PloS one · 2018Article
- Assessing the global reach and value of a provider-facing healthcare app using large-scale analytics.BMJ global health · 2017Article
- Mobile Phone Apps to Improve Medication Adherence: A Systematic Stepwise Process to Identify High-Quality Apps.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2016Article
- Mobile phone-based e-diary for assessment and enhancement of medications adherence among patients with multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the past years, an enormous increase in the number of available health-related applications (apps) has occurred, from approximately 5800 in 2011 to over 23,000 in 2013, in the iTunes store. However, little is still known regarding the use, possible effectiveness, and risks of these applications. In this study, we focused on apps and other e-tools related to medicine use. A large subset of the general population uses medicines and might benefit from tools that aid in the use of medicine.
objectiveThe aim of the present study was to gain more insight into the characteristics, possible risks, and possible benefits of health apps and e-tools related to medication use.
methodsWe first made an inventory of apps and other e-tools for medication use (n=116). Tools were coded by two independent researchers, based on the information available in the app stores and websites. Subsequently, for one type of often downloaded apps (aimed at people with diabetes), we investigated users' experiences using an online questionnaire.
resultsResults of the inventory show that many apps for medication use are available and that they mainly offer simple functionalities. In line with this, the most experienced benefit by users of apps for regulating blood glucose levels in the online questionnaire was "information quick and conveniently available". Other often experienced benefits were improving health and self-reliance. Results of the inventory show that a minority of the apps for medication use has potentially high risks and for many of the apps it is unclear whether and how personal data are stored. In contrast, online questionnaire among users of apps for blood glucose regulation indicates that they hardly ever experience problems or doubts considering reliability and/or privacy. Although, respondents do mention to experience disadvantages of use due to incomplete apps and apps with poor ease of use. Respondents not using app(s) indicate that they might use them in the future if reliability of the apps and instructions on how to use them are more clear.
conclusionsThis study shows that for apps and e-tools related to medicine use a small subset of tools might involve relatively high risks. For the large group of nonmedical devices apps, risks are lower, but risks lie in the enormous availability and low levels of regulation. In addition, both users and nonusers indicated that overall quality of apps (ease of use, completeness, good functionalities) is an issue. Considering that important benefits (eg, improving health and self-reliance) are experienced by many of the respondents using apps for regulating blood glucose levels, improving reliability and quality of apps is likely to have many profits. In addition, creating better awareness regarding the existence and how to use apps will likely improve proper use by more people, enhancing the profits of these tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.