Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28288954›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2017

Content, Usability, and Utilization of Plain Language in Breast Cancer Mobile Phone Apps: A Systematic Analysis.

Tamar Ginossar, Sayyed Fawad Ali Shah, Andrew J West, Joshua M Bentley, Charlene A Caburnay, Matthew W Kreuter, Anita Y Kinney

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tamar GinossarDepartment of Communication and Journalism, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0136-6675
Sayyed Fawad Ali ShahDepartment of Communication and Journalism, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4380-7763
Andrew J WestDepartment of Communication and Journalism, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6432-1856
Joshua M BentleyDepartment of Strategic Communication, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8391-6609
Charlene A CaburnayHealth Communication Research Laboratory, Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8770-7989
Matthew W KreuterHealth Communication Research Laboratory, Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7272-0785
Anita Y KinneyDepartment of Internal Medicine, Health Science Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2996-9355
University of New Mexico · USWashington University in St. Louis · USTexas Christian University · US

Funding

WOMEN'S CANCERS RESEARCH PROGRAMP30CA118100 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI Yolanda Sanchez · 2005 to 2026
$57.1M
Washington University Center for Diabetes Translation Research P30DK092950 · NIDDK · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Ross C Brownson, Debra Haire-Joshu · 2011 to 2026
$11.7M
Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implemention Research in CancerR25CA171994 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BROWNSON, ROSS C · 2013 to 2017
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA118100NCI NIH HHS R25 CA171994NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092950
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer is one of the leading contributors to preventable illness and death among women. Although mobile phone apps provide unprecedented opportunity to engage women along the cancer continuum, little is known about the availability, content, and usability of breast cancer mobile phone apps.

objectiveThis study analyzed the content and adherence to literate design standards of all breast cancer-related apps available on the App Store and Google Play, as well as the relationship between their content, user ratings, and price.

methodsFollowing identification and downloading of all available breast cancer mobile phone apps in October 2015, 101 apps were confirmed as focusing on breast cancer. Based on prior research, we adapted and applied a content analysis scheme that was specific to breast cancer apps, including their main purpose, relevance to the cancer care continuum, and adherence to usability standards outlined by the Institute of Medicine (IOM).

resultsThe most common aim of apps was educational (73/101, 72.3%), followed by behavior change (24/101, 23.9%), fundraising (20/101, 19.8%), and advocacy (14/101, 13.9%). On the cancer continuum, primary prevention (strategies to prevent cancer cells from occurring) was mentioned in almost one-third of the apps (30/101, 29.7%). Less than half of the apps (46/101, 45.5%) presented information about mammography and/or breast clinical exam, and 53 apps (52.5%) discussed breast self-exam (which is no longer recommended). Symptoms of cancer prediagnosis, such as a lump, were discussed in almost half of the apps (48/101, 47.5%) and a similar number of apps included information about genetic risk for breast cancer (47/101, 46.5%). Information about breast cancer diagnosis was included in 42 apps (41.58%) and 43 (42.6%) apps discussed treatment options. Survivorship issues were addressed in 17 (16.8%) apps. Only one (1.0%) app discussed hospice. Adherence to usability recommendations was low. The median composite score was 3 (mean 2.60, SD 1.20) of the six recommended usability items. With eight plain language items, the median of the composite health literacy score was 5 (mean 5.06, SD 2.00). Most apps did not use easy-to-understand words (44/101, 43.6%) and few (24/101, 23.8%) defined key terms.

conclusionsCurrent breast cancer apps provide important information about breast cancer, but the most common topic covered is breast self-examination, a non-evidence-based screening strategy. Apps that focus on evidence-based strategies on the cancer continuum are needed, with a notable pressing need for apps that would address survivorship and end of life. Finally, developers of breast cancer apps should adhere to IOM standards to meet the needs of diverse populations and reduce current disparities.

Indexed as

breast cancercancer-related contentmobile appsmobile phones

Identifiers

PMID28288954
PMCPMC5368351
OpenAlexW2596012313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.