Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31293246›Full record

SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019

Patients' Perceptions of mHealth Apps: Meta-Ethnographic Review of Qualitative Studies.

VanAnh Vo, Lola Auroy, Aline Sarradon-Eck

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 155 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
155citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

155 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Undergraduate Oncology Education: A Pedagogical Framework.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

95 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

3 authors.

VanAnh VoDepartment of Epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9053-0715
Lola AuroyUniversité Grenoble Alpes, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Sciences Po Grenoble, Pacte, Grenoble, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0190-5835
Aline Sarradon-EckAix-Marseille Université, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6697-8058

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile phones and tablets are being increasingly integrated into the daily lives of many people worldwide. Mobile health (mHealth) apps have promising possibilities for optimizing health systems, improving care and health, and reducing health disparities. However, health care apps often seem to be underused after being downloaded.

objectiveThe aim of this paper is to reach a better understanding of people's perceptions, beliefs, and experience of mHealth apps as well as to determine how highly they appreciate these tools.

methodsA systematic review was carried out on qualitative studies published in English, on patients' perception of mHealth apps between January 2013 and June 2018. Data extracted from these articles were synthesized using a meta-ethnographic approach and an interpretative method.

resultsA total of 356 articles were selected for screening, and 43 of them met the inclusion criteria. Most of the articles included populations inhabiting developed countries and were published during the last 2 years, and most of the apps on which they focused were designed to help patients with chronic diseases. In this review, we present the strengths and weaknesses of using mHealth apps from the patients' point of view. The strengths can be categorized into two main aspects: engaging patients in their own health care and increasing patient empowerment. The weaknesses pointed out by the participants focus on four main topics: trustworthiness, appropriateness, personalization, and accessibility of these tools.

conclusionsAlthough many of the patients included in the studies reviewed considered mHealth apps as a useful complementary tool, some major problems arise in their optimal use, including the need for more closely tailored designs, the cost of these apps, the validity of the information delivered, and security and privacy issues. Many of these issues could be resolved with more support from health providers. In addition, it would be worth developing standards to ensure that these apps provide patients accurate evidence-based information.

Indexed as

PerceptionQualitative ResearchAnthropology, CulturalHumansMobile ApplicationsPatientsPatient SatisfactionTelemedicineappsmHealthmobile appsmobile phonequalitative studiessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31293246
PMCPMC6652126

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.