ArticleNPJ digital medicine2018
User experience of instant blood pressure: exploring reasons for the popularity of an inaccurate mobile health app.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Choice of home blood pressure monitoring device: the role of device characteristics among Alaska Native and American Indian peoples.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Digital Health Revolution in India: Transforming Health and Medicine.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2024Article
- Rating analysis and BERTopic modeling of consumer versus regulated mHealth app reviews in Germany.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Patient Acceptance of Prescribed and Fully Reimbursed mHealth Apps in Germany: An UTAUT2-based Online Survey Study.Journal of medical systems · 2023Article
- Pregnancy and Reproductive Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease in Women.Circulation research · 2022Review
- Community Hypertension Screening and Care Referral With Blood Pressure-Measuring Kiosks, Digital Education Modalities, and Text Messages.American journal of hypertension · 2022Article
- Evidence of User-Expert Gaps in Health App Ratings and Implications for Practice.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- The Mobile Health App Trustworthiness Checklist: Usability Assessment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Biosensors for Personal Mobile Health: A System Architecture Perspective.Advanced materials technologies · 2020Article
- Understanding the quality, effectiveness and attributes of top-rated smartphone health apps.Evidence-based mental health · 2019Article
- The use of photoplethysmography for assessing hypertension.NPJ digital medicine · 2019Review
- Digital health: a path to validation.NPJ digital medicine · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Instant blood pressure (IBP) is a top-selling yet inaccurate blood pressure (BP)-measuring app that underreports elevated BP. Its iTunes app store user ratings and reviews were generally positive. Whether underreporting of elevated BP improves user experience is unknown. Participants enrolled at five clinics estimated their BP, measured their BP with IBP, then completed a user experience survey. Participants were grouped based on how their IBP BP measurements compared to their estimated BP (IBP Lower, IBP Similar, or IBP Higher). Logistic regressions compared odds of rating "agree" or "strongly agree" on survey questions by group. Most participants enjoyed using the app. In the adjusted model, IBP Higher had significantly lower proportions reporting enjoyment and motivation to check BP in the future than IBP Similar. All three groups were comparable in perceived accuracy of IBP and most participants perceived it to be accurate. However, user enjoyment and likelihood of future BP monitoring were negatively associated with higher-than-expected reported systolic BP. These data suggest reassuring app results from an inaccurate BP-measuring app may have improved user experience, which may have led to more positive user reviews and greater sales. Systematic underreporting of elevated BPs may have been a contributor to the app's success. Further studies are needed to confirm whether falsely reassuring output from other mobile health apps improve user experience and drives uptake.
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.