ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019
Why Reviewing Apps Is Not Enough: Transparency for Trust (T4T) Principles of Responsible Health App Marketplaces.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- mHealth Apps for Dementia, Alzheimer Disease, and Other Neurocognitive Disorders: Systematic Search and Environmental Scan.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Pooled it
- Challenges With Developing Secure Mobile Health Applications: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Pooled it
- Framework for the Design Engineering and Clinical Implementation and Evaluation of mHealth Apps for Sleep Disturbance: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Usability Evaluations of Mobile Mental Health Technologies: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Digital smartphone intervention to recognise and manage early warning signs in schizophrenia to prevent relapse: the EMPOWER feasibility cluster RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Trial
- Trust and Use of Recommendations for Health Apps Among European Residents: Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Observational
- Achieving clinically meaningful outcomes in digital health: a six-step, cyclical precision engagement framework (ENGAGE).Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- A Chatbot (Juno) Prototype to Deploy a Behavioral Activation Intervention to Pregnant Women: Qualitative Evaluation Using a Multiple Case Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Acceptability and experience of a smartphone symptom monitoring app for people with psychosis in China (YouXin): a qualitative study.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- A collaborative realist review of remote measurement technologies for depression in young people.Nature human behaviour · 2024Review
- Perception of Apps for Mental Health Assessment With Recommendations for Future Design: United Kingdom Semistructured Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Exploring User Perspectives of and Ethical Experiences With Teletherapy Apps: Qualitative Analysis of User Reviews.JMIR mental health · 2023Article
- Guidelines to Establish an Equitable Mobile Health Ecosystem.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2023Article
- Stakeholders' views and opinions on existing guidelines on "How to Choose Mental Health Apps".Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Comparing Professional and Consumer Ratings of Mental Health Apps: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- mHealth Apps for Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2022Article
- Review
- Smartphone Apps for Vaping Cessation: Quality Assessment and Content Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Article
- The Effects of a Digital Mental Health Intervention in Adults With Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: Analysis of Real-World User Data.JMIR cardio · 2021Article
- Terms and conditions apply: Critical issues for readability and jargon in mental health depression apps.Internet interventions · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The overselling of health apps that may provide little benefit and even harm needs the health community's immediate attention. With little formal regulation, a light-touch approach to consumer protection is now warranted to give customers a modicum of information to help them choose from the vast array of so-called health apps. We suggest 4 guiding principles that should be adopted to provide the consumer with information that can guide their choice at the point of download. We call these the Transparency for Trust (T4T) principles, which are derived from experimental studies, systematic reviews, and reports of patient concerns. The T4T principles are (1) privacy and data security, (2) development characteristics, (3) feasibility data, and (4) benefits. All our questions are in a simple form so that all consumers can understand them. We suggest that app stores should take responsibility for providing this information and store it with any app marketed as a health app. Even the absence of information would provide consumers with some understanding and fuel their choice. This would also provide some commercial impetus for app developers to consider this requested information from the outset.
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.