Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32609622›Full record

ReviewJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Mobile Health Apps on COVID-19 Launched in the Early Days of the Pandemic: Content Analysis and Review.

Long Chiau Ming, Noorazrina Untong, Nur Amalina Aliudin, Norliza Osili, Nurolaini Kifli, Ching Siang Tan, Khang Wen Goh, Pit Wei Ng, Yaser Mohammed Al-Worafi, Kah Seng Lee and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Mobile Apps for COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Reviews.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

18 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

11 authors.

Long Chiau Ming *Pengiran Anak Puteri Rashidah Sa'adatul Bolkiah Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong, Brunei Darussalam.ORCID 0000-0002-6971-1383
Noorazrina Untong *Pengiran Anak Puteri Rashidah Sa'adatul Bolkiah Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong, Brunei Darussalam.ORCID 0000-0002-9819-4178
Nur Amalina Aliudin *Pengiran Anak Puteri Rashidah Sa'adatul Bolkiah Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong, Brunei Darussalam.ORCID 0000-0001-6753-2026
Norliza Osili *Pengiran Anak Puteri Rashidah Sa'adatul Bolkiah Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong, Brunei Darussalam.ORCID 0000-0003-2333-4751
Nurolaini KifliPengiran Anak Puteri Rashidah Sa'adatul Bolkiah Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong, Brunei Darussalam.ORCID 0000-0002-8817-7956
Ching Siang TanSchool of Pharmacy, KPJ Healthcare University College, Nilai, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-5069-3314
Khang Wen GohFaculty of Science and Technology, Quest International University Perak, Ipoh, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0001-6686-7019
Pit Wei NgDepartment of Pharmacy, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-5444-3745
Yaser Mohammed Al-WorafiCollege of Pharmacy, University of Science and Technology of Fujairah, Fujairah, United Arab Emirates.ORCID 0000-0002-5752-2913
Kah Seng LeeFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Cyberjaya, Cyberjaya, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0001-6235-0848
Hui Poh GohPengiran Anak Puteri Rashidah Sa'adatul Bolkiah Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong, Brunei Darussalam.ORCID 0000-0002-0480-399X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health (mHealth) app use is a major concern because of the possible dissemination of misinformation that could harm the users. Particularly, it can be difficult for health care professionals to recommend a suitable app for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) education and self-monitoring purposes.

objectiveThis study aims to analyze and evaluate the contents as well as features of COVID-19 mobile apps. The findings are instrumental in helping health care professionals to identify suitable mobile apps for COVID-19 self-monitoring and education. The results of the mobile apps' assessment could potentially help mobile app developers improve or modify their existing mobile app designs to achieve optimal outcomes.

methodsThe search for the mHealth apps available in the android-based Play Store and the iOS-based App Store was conducted between April 18 and May 5, 2020. The region of the App Store where we performed the search was the United States, and a virtual private network app was used to locate and access COVID-19 mobile apps from all countries on the Google Play Store. The inclusion criteria were apps that are related to COVID-19 with no restriction in language type. The basic features assessment criteria used for comparison were the requirement for free subscription, internet connection, education or advisory content, size of the app, ability to export data, and automated data entry. The functionality of the apps was assessed according to knowledge (information on COVID-19), tracing or mapping of COVID-19 cases, home monitoring surveillance, online consultation with a health authority, and official apps run by health authorities.

resultsOf the 223 COVID-19-related mobile apps, only 30 (19.9%) found in the App Store and 28 (44.4%) in the Play Store matched the inclusion criteria. In the basic features assessment, most App Store (10/30, 33.3%) and Play Store (10/28, 35.7%) apps scored 4 out of 7 points. Meanwhile, the outcome of the functionality assessment for most App Store apps (13/30, 43.3%) was a score of 3 compared to android-based apps (10/28, 35.7%), which scored 2 (out of the maximum 5 points). Evaluation of the basic functions showed that 75.0% (n=36) of the 48 included mobile apps do not require a subscription, 56.3% (n=27) provide symptom advice, and 41.7% (n=20) have educational content. In terms of the specific functions, more than half of the included mobile apps are official mobile apps maintained by a health authority for COVID-19 information provision. Around 37.5% (n=18) and 31.3% (n=15) of the mobile apps have tracing or mapping and home monitoring surveillance functions, respectively, with only 17% (n=8) of the mobile apps equipped with an online consultation function.

conclusionsMost iOS-based apps incorporate infographic mapping of COVID-19 cases, while most android-based apps incorporate home monitoring surveillance features instead of providing focused educational content on COVID-19. It is important to evaluate the contents and features of COVID-19 mobile apps to guide users in choosing a suitable mobile app based on their requirements.

Indexed as

Coronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Health EducationHumansMobile ApplicationsPandemicsPneumonia, ViralSelf CareTelemedicineUnited Statesappcontent analysiscoronavirusCOVID-19health educationmHealthmobile medical appself-care

Identifiers

PMID32609622
PMCPMC7505686

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.