Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33661123›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Attitudes of General Practitioners Toward Prescription of Mobile Health Apps: Qualitative Study.

Aline Sarradon-Eck, Tiphanie Bouchez, Lola Auroy, Matthieu Schuers, David Darmon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

5 authors.

Aline Sarradon-EckAix Marseille University, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6697-8058
Tiphanie BouchezUniversité Côte d'Azur, Rétines, Healthy, DERMG, Nice, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2203-9745
Lola AuroyUniversité Grenoble Alpes, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Sciences Po Grenoble, Pacte, Grenoble, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0190-5835
Matthieu SchuersDepartment of General Medicine, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7355-4560
David DarmonAix Marseille University, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4425-4163

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health (mHealth) apps are a potential means of empowering patients, especially in the case of multimorbidity, which complicates patients' care needs. Previous studies have shown that general practitioners (GPs) have both expectations and concerns regarding patients' use of mHealth apps that could impact their willingness to recommend the apps to patients.

objectiveThe aim of this qualitative study is to investigate French GPs' attitudes toward the prescription of mHealth apps or devices aimed toward patients by analyzing GPs' perceptions and expectations of mHealth technologies.

methodsA total of 36 GPs were interviewed individually (n=20) or in a discussion group (n=16). All participants were in private practice. A qualitative analysis of each interview and focus group was conducted using grounded theory analysis.

resultsConsidering the value assigned to mHealth apps by participants and their willingness or resistance to prescribe them, 3 groups were defined based on the attitudes or positions adopted by GPs: digital engagement (favorable attitude; mHealth apps are perceived as additional resources and complementary tools that facilitate the medical work, the follow-up care, and the monitoring of patients; and apps increase patients' compliance and empowerment); patient protection (related to the management of patient care and fear of risks for patients, concerns about patient data privacy and security, doubt about the usefulness for empowering patients, standardization of the medical decision process, overmedicalization, risks for individual freedom, and increasing social inequalities in health); doctor protection (fear of additional tasks and burden, doubt about the actionability of patient-gathered health data, risk for medical liability, dehumanization of the patient-doctor relationship, fear of increased drug prescription, and commodification of patient data).

conclusionsA deep understanding of both the expectations and fears of GPs is essential to motivate them to recommend mHealth apps to their patients. The results of this study show the need to provide appropriate education and training to enhance GPs' digital skills. Certification of the apps by an independent authority should be encouraged to reassure physicians about ethical and data security issues. Our results highlight the need to overcome technical issues such as interoperability between data collection and medical records to limit the disruption of medical work because of data flow.

Indexed as

General PractitionersMobile ApplicationsTelemedicineAttitudeHumansPrescriptionsFrancegeneral practitionersmobile applicationsmobile phonequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID33661123
PMCPMC7974757

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.