ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019
Use of Health Apps and Wearable Devices: Survey Among Italian Associations for Patient Advocacy.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Identification of Patient Perceptions That Can Affect the Uptake of Interventions Using Biometric Monitoring Devices: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Neurosurgical Care in Italy: A Comprehensive Review and Lessons for High-Income Nations.Neurosurgery practice · 2026Review
- An Update on the Use of Wearable Devices in Men's Health.The world journal of men's health · 2023Review
- An Exploration of Wearable Device Features Used in UK Hospital Parkinson Disease Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- The Association between mHealth App Use and Healthcare Satisfaction among Clients at Outpatient Clinics: A Cross-Sectional Study in Inner Mongolia, China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The Role of Technology and Social Media Use in Sleep-Onset Difficulties Among Italian Adolescents: Cross-sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Big data and artificial intelligence in future patient management. How is it all started? Where are we at now? Quo tendimus?Advances in laboratory medicine · 2020Review
- Potential Benefits and Risks Resulting From the Introduction of Health Apps and Wearables Into the German Statutory Health Care System: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Use of Health Apps by Nurses for Professional Purposes: Web-Based Survey Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- Patients' views of wearable devices and AI in healthcare: findings from the ComPaRe e-cohort.NPJ digital medicine · 2019Article
- Comprehensive Review on Current and Future Regulatory Requirements on Wearable Sensors in Preclinical and Clinical Testing.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTechnological tools such as Web-based social networks, telemedicine, apps, or wearable devices are becoming more widespread in health care like elsewhere. Although patients are the main users, for example, to monitor symptoms and clinical parameters or to communicate with the doctor, their perspective is seldom analyzed, and to the best of our knowledge, no one has focused on the patients' health care advocacy associations' point of view.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to assess patients' health care advocacy associations' opinions about the use, usefulness, obstacles, negative aspects, and impact of health apps and wearable devices through a Web-based survey.
methodsWe conducted a Web-based survey through SurveyMonkey over nearly 3 months. Participants were contacted via an email explaining the aims of the survey and providing a link to complete the Web-based questionnaire. All the 20 items were mandatory, and the anonymized data were collected automatically into a database. Only fully completed questionnaires were considered for analysis.
resultsWe contacted 1998 patients' health care advocacy associations; a total of 258 questionnaires were received back (response rate 12.91%), and 227 of the received questionnaires were fully completed (completion rate 88.0%). Informative apps, hospital apps for viewing medical reports or booking visits, and those for monitoring physical activity are the most used. They are considered especially useful to improve patients' engagement and compliance with treatment. Wearable devices to check physical activity and glycemia are the most widespread considering, again, their benefits in increasing patients' involvement and treatment compliance. For health apps and wearable devices, the main obstacles to their use are personal and technical reasons; the risk of overmedicalization is considered the most negative aspect of their constant use, while privacy and confidentiality of data are not rated a limitation. No statistical difference was found on stratifying the answers by responders' technological level (P=.30), age (P=.10), and the composition of the association's advisory board (P=.15).
conclusionsAccording to responders, health apps and wearable devices are sufficiently known and used and are considered potential supports for greater involvement in health management. However, there are still obstacles to their adoption, and the developers need to work to make them more accessible and more useful. The involvement of patients and their associations in planning services and products based on these technologies (as well as others) would be desirable to overcome these barriers and boost awareness about privacy and the confidentiality of data.
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.