Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28389420›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

The Reviews Are in: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Consumer Perspectives on Apps for Bipolar Disorder.

Jennifer Nicholas, Andrea S Fogarty, Katherine Boydell, Helen Christensen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
42.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 175 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. A systematic quality rating of available mobile health apps for borderline personality disorder.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer NicholasBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1889-1107
Andrea S FogartyBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2939-7027
Katherine BoydellBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1464-8532
Helen ChristensenBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0435-2065
Black Dog Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe delivery of mobile health (mHealth) services is acceptable to mental health consumers. However, despite the benefits of accessibility, cost-effectiveness, anonymity, and ability to tailor content to individual needs, consumer engagement remains a hurdle for uptake and continued use. This may be unsurprising as few studies have examined app content from the consumer perspective or assessed consumer preferences for the content of apps for mental health management. An opportunity to examine consumer perspectives exists in using naturally generated data that is publically available in the Google Play and Apple app stores. Whereas commercial developers routinely use this data, to date there has been no in-depth evaluation within scientific research.

objectiveThe aim of our study was to explore what consumers consider useful content for mental health management apps, identify unmet needs, and understand user expectations of mental health apps within the context of apps for bipolar disorder.

methodsPublically available English language consumer reviews of 48 apps for bipolar disorder were used as data, providing a total of 2173 reviews. Review text was coded and analyzed using a team approach to qualitative content analysis. Results were presented in 2 forms: (1) a quantitative summary of the 9 major and minor themes and (2) a qualitative synthesis of key thematic findings.

resultsThe majority of reviews were for symptom monitoring apps (87.94%, 1911/2173). The qualitative content analysis revealed 5 main themes: (1) laudatory talk, comments regarding the app's benefits including helpfulness and successful design features (74.00% of reviews, 1608/2173); (2) unfavorable feedback, negative reviews largely concerning unmet needs, privacy and technical issues, and potential dangers of app use (25.54%, 555/2173); (3) conceptions of community, referring to both communities of users with mental ill-health accessed via the app and a community created among app users and developers (24.25%, 527/2173); (4) wishlist features, app features requested by users (17.53%, 381/2173); and (5) apps and therapy, app use within clinical care (10.58%, 230/2173). Four minor themes were also identified: (1) app cost, (2) privacy and data security, (3) comparisons with traditional monitoring, and (4) evidence-based mHealth.

conclusionsAlthough mostly positive, the proportion of reviews containing wishlist requests indicates consumer needs are not adequately addressed by currently available disorder management apps. Consumers value content that is helpful, supportive, and easy to use, and they are integrating apps into their health management and clinical care without necessarily considering the evidence-base or clinical effectiveness of the tool. User expectations regarding developer responsiveness to their needs has implications for community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation. However, this expectation is incompatible with current mHealth funding structures.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorBipolar DisorderData CollectionHumansMental HealthMobile ApplicationsQualitative ResearchSmartphoneTelemedicinebipolar disordermobile applicationsqualitative researchsmartphonetelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID28389420
PMCPMC5400886
OpenAlexW2604372657

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.