Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32110428›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Smartphone apps for cancer: A content analysis of the digital health marketplace.

Deborah H Charbonneau, Shonee Hightower, Anne Katz, Ke Zhang, Judith Abrams, Nicole Senft, Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer, Elisabeth Heath, Tara Eaton, Hayley S Thompson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mobile applications in radiation oncology-current choices and future potentials.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

10 authors.

Deborah H CharbonneauSchool of Information Sciences, Wayne State University, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3130-5769
Shonee HightowerSchool of Information Sciences, Wayne State University, USA.
Anne KatzDepartment of Oncology, Wayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, USA.
Ke ZhangCollege of Education, Wayne State University, USA.
Judith AbramsDepartment of Oncology, Wayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, USA.
Nicole SenftDepartment of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3617-7276
Jennifer L Beebe-DimmerDepartment of Oncology, Wayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, USA.
Elisabeth HeathDepartment of Oncology, Wayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, USA.
Tara EatonCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, USA.
Hayley S ThompsonDepartment of Oncology, Wayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, USA.

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS022955
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine the state of smartphone applications for cancer intended for the general public with a focus on interactive features, content sources, and application developer affiliations. The level of health provider involvement in screening or appraising application content was also assessed.

methodsA total of 123 apps were identified for analysis from two major mobile application marketplaces (Apple iTunes = 40; Google Play = 83). Application characteristics were collected, analyzed, and reported. These included the mobile platform, cost, application developer affiliation, date of last update, purpose of application, content sources, and interactive features.

resultsIn the study sample, 50% of the applications focused on general information for cancer (62/123). Next, this was followed by applications for breast cancer (15%, 19/123) and skin cancer (7%, 8/123). Only 10% of application descriptions (12/123) identified sources for application content. Interactive features included the ability to monitor symptoms, side effects, treatments, and chronic pain (20%, 25/123). Only 3% of the applications (4/123) stated content had been evaluated by health providers.

conclusionsThis study contributes an updated analysis of applications for cancer available in the digital health marketplace. The findings have implications for information quality and supportive resources for cancer care. More transparent information about content sources, organizational affiliations, and level of health provider oversight in screening application content is warranted. Recommendations for improving the quality of cancer applications are also offered.

Indexed as

Cancerdigital healthinformation resourcesmobile applicationsoncologyquality

Identifiers

PMID32110428
PMCPMC7016299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.