ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2016
Expert Involvement Predicts mHealth App Downloads: Multivariate Regression Analysis of Urology Apps.
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 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Heart Disease-Related mHealth Apps in India: Systematic Search in App Stores and Metadata Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Evaluating mobile apps for sun protection: content analysis and user preferences in a two-part study.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Attributes, Quality, and Downloads of Dementia-Related Mobile Apps for Patients With Dementia and Their Caregivers: App Review and Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Design and Development of Mobile Application for Managing Poisoned Patients.Advanced biomedical research · 2024Article
- Assessing the Content and Quality of Digital Tools for Managing Gestational Weight Gain: Systematic Search and Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Review
- Article
- Mobile Health Apps Providing Information on Drugs for Adult Emergency Care: Systematic Search on App Stores and Content Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Review
- Evaluating Evidence-Based Content, Features of Exercise Instruction, and Expert Involvement in Physical Activity Apps for Pregnant Women: Systematic Search and Content Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Review
- Perceptions of Older Men Using a Mobile Health App to Monitor Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Tamsulosin Side Effects: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2021Article
- Is electronic follow-up using a mobile phone application after mid-urethral sling placement feasible and efficient?World journal of urology · 2021Article
- Assessing the Readability of App Descriptions and Investigating its Role in the Choice of mHealth Apps: Retrospective and Prospective Analyses.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2021Article
- Content and functionality features of voiding diary applications for mobile devices in Brazil: a descriptive analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Factors Related to User Ratings and User Downloads of Mobile Apps for Maternal and Infant Health: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Predictors of the Number of Installs in Psychiatry Smartphone Apps: Systematic Search on App Stores and Content Analysis.JMIR mental health · 2019Article
- Observational
- Mobile Apps for Medication Management: Review and Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Review
- Quality of Publicly Available Physical Activity Apps: Review and Content Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2018Review
- eHealth and mHealth in prostate cancer detection and active surveillance.Translational andrology and urology · 2018Review
- Designing Health Apps to Support Dietetic Professional Practice and Their Patients: Qualitative Results From an International Survey.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2017Article
- Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator: Development and Usability Testing of the Mobile Phone App.JMIR cancer · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrological mobile medical (mHealth) apps are gaining popularity with both clinicians and patients. mHealth is a rapidly evolving and heterogeneous field, with some urology apps being downloaded over 10,000 times and others not at all. The factors that contribute to medical app downloads have yet to be identified, including the hypothetical influence of expert involvement in app development.
objectiveThe objective of our study was to identify predictors of the number of urology app downloads.
methodsWe reviewed urology apps available in the Google Play Store and collected publicly available data. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression evaluated the effect of publicly available app variables on the number of apps being downloaded.
resultsOf 129 urology apps eligible for study, only 2 (1.6%) had >10,000 downloads, with half having ≤100 downloads and 4 (3.1%) having none at all. Apps developed with expert urologist involvement (P=.003), optional in-app purchases (P=.01), higher user rating (P<.001), and more user reviews (P<.001) were more likely to be installed. App cost was inversely related to the number of downloads (P<.001). Only data from the Google Play Store and the developers' websites, but not other platforms, were publicly available for analysis, and the level and nature of expert involvement was not documented.
conclusionsThe explicit participation of urologists in app development is likely to enhance its chances to have a higher number of downloads. This finding should help in the design of better apps and further promote urologist involvement in mHealth. Official certification processes are required to ensure app quality and user safety.
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.