Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30181114›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

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

Brooks Tiffany, Paula Blasi, Sheryl L Catz, Jennifer B McClure

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.7field-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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Brooks TiffanyKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3023-2067
Paula BlasiKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States.
Sheryl L CatzBetty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6325-9349
Jennifer B McClureKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2094-9147
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USUC Davis Health · US

Funding

Oral Health 4 Life: Promoting Oral Health among Tobacco Quitline CallersU01DE024462 · NIDCR · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI MCCLURE, JENNIFER B · 2014 to 2017
$2.3M
NIDCR NIH HHS U01 DE024462
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere 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.

objectiveWe 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.

methodsBetween 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.

resultsThirty-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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

dental careeHealthmobile healthoral healthoral hygienereview

Identifiers

PMID30181114
PMCPMC6231784
OpenAlexW2890904488

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.