ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020
Barriers to and Facilitators of the Prescription of mHealth Apps in Australian General Practice: Qualitative Study.
Article 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 54 papers, 5 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
54 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The gaps and challenges in digital health technology use as perceived by patients: a scoping review and narrative meta-synthesis.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of mHealth Apps for Maternal Health Care Delivery: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- The Use of Mobile Technologies to Promote Physical Activity and Reduce Sedentary Behaviors in the Middle East and North Africa Region: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Sociotechnical Factors Affecting Patients' Adoption of Mobile Health Tools: Systematic Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Pooled it
- The Effect of Smartphone App-Based Interventions for Patients With Hypertension: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Pooled it
- Experiences with nutritional follow-up and barriers and opportunities of implementing digital seamless nutrition care in the head and neck cancer treatment course: a qualitative study from patient, family caregiver, and healthcare professional perspectives.BMC health services research · 2025Trial
- Efficacy and Acceptability of a Mobile App for Monitoring the Clinical Status of Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Receiving Home Oxygen Therapy: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Considerations for Nurses in Recommending mHealth Apps for People Living With Chronic Conditions: A Qualitative Study.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of Nonpharmacological Self-Management Interventions for Persistent Pain: Protocol for Single-Case Experimental Designs.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Mental health clinicians' perceptions and perceived challenges about recommending mental health apps to patients in Ethiopia.Discover mental health · 2026Article
- Trust and Use of Recommendations for Health Apps Among European Residents: Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Observational
- Patient and Clinician Attitudes Toward Mobile Health Apps: Qualitative Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Influencing factors of continuance intention of medical applications for the elderly.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Factors influencing primary care physicians recommending patients to use digital health technologies for self-management: A cross-sectional study across 20 countries.The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
- Concepts for the Integration and Implementation of mHealth Apps for Patients With Mental Disorders: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Insights Into How mHealth Applications Could Be Introduced Into Standard Hypertension Care in Germany: Qualitative Study With German Cardiologists and General Practitioners.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Barriers to the Utilization of mHealth Applications in Saudi Arabia: Insights from Patients with Chronic Diseases.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mHealth adoption: Identification of the main barriers through an international comparative analysis.International journal of medical informatics · 2025Article
- Health professionals' use of smartphone apps for clients with low back pain: an observational study.Primary health care research & development · 2025Observational
- Involving End Users in the Development and Usability Testing of a Smartphone App Designed for Individuals With Prediabetes: Mixed-Methods Focus Group Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ubiquity of smartphones and health apps make them a potential self-management tool for patients that could be prescribed by medical professionals. However, little is known about how Australian general practitioners and their patients view the possibility of prescribing mobile health (mHealth) apps as a nondrug intervention.
objectiveThis study aimed to determine barriers and facilitators to prescribing mHealth apps in Australian general practice from the perspective of general practitioners and their patients.
methodsWe conducted semistructured interviews in Australian general practice settings with purposively sampled general practitioners and patients. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed by two researchers.
resultsInterview participants included 20 general practitioners and 15 adult patients. General practitioners' perceived barriers to prescribing apps included a generational difference in the digital propensity for providers and patients; lack of knowledge of prescribable apps and trustworthy sources to access them; the time commitment required of providers and patients to learn and use the apps; and concerns about privacy, safety, and trustworthiness of health apps. General practitioners perceived facilitators as trustworthy sources to access prescribable apps and information, and younger generation and widespread smartphone ownership. For patients, the main barriers were older age and usability of mHealth apps. Patients were not concerned about privacy and data safety issues regarding health app use. Facilitators for patients included the ubiquity of smartphones and apps, especially for the younger generation and recommendation of apps by doctors. We identified evidence of effectiveness as an independent theme from both the provider and patient perspectives.
conclusionsmHealth app prescription appears to be feasible in general practice. The barriers and facilitators identified by the providers and patients overlapped, though privacy was of less concern to patients. The involvement of health professionals and patients is vital for the successful integration of effective, evidence-based mHealth apps with clinical practice.
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.