Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34152277›Full record

SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Challenges With Developing Secure Mobile Health Applications: Systematic Review.

Bakheet Aljedaani, M Ali Babar

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Quality Assessment of Digital Health Apps: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Digitalized transcranial electrical stimulation: A consensus statement.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Building Patient-Facing Technology: A REDCap-Based Approach.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Bakheet AljedaaniCentre for Research on Engineering Software Technologies, School of Computer Science, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5865-6761
M Ali BabarCentre for Research on Engineering Software Technologies, School of Computer Science, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9696-3626

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health (mHealth) apps have gained significant popularity over the last few years due to their tremendous benefits, such as lowering health care costs and increasing patient awareness. However, the sensitivity of health care data makes the security of mHealth apps a serious concern. Poor security practices and lack of security knowledge on the developers' side can cause several vulnerabilities in mHealth apps.

objectiveIn this review paper, we aimed to identify and analyze the reported challenges concerning security that developers of mHealth apps face. Additionally, our study aimed to develop a conceptual framework with the challenges for developing secure apps faced by mHealth app development organizations. The knowledge of such challenges can help to reduce the risk of developing insecure mHealth apps.

methodsWe followed the systematic literature review method for this review. We selected studies that were published between January 2008 and October 2020 since the major app stores launched in 2008. We selected 32 primary studies using predefined criteria and used a thematic analysis method for analyzing the extracted data.

resultsOf the 1867 articles obtained, 32 were included in this review based on the predefined criteria. We identified 9 challenges that can affect the development of secure mHealth apps. These challenges include lack of security guidelines and regulations for developing secure mHealth apps (20/32, 63%), developers' lack of knowledge and expertise for secure mHealth app development (18/32, 56%), lack of stakeholders' involvement during mHealth app development (6/32, 19%), no/little developer attention towards the security of mHealth apps (5/32, 16%), lack of resources for developing a secure mHealth app (4/32, 13%), project constraints during the mHealth app development process (4/32, 13%), lack of security testing during mHealth app development (4/32, 13%), developers' lack of motivation and ethical considerations (3/32, 9%), and lack of security experts' engagement during mHealth app development (2/32, 6%). Based on our analysis, we have presented a conceptual framework that highlights the correlation between the identified challenges.

conclusionsWhile mHealth app development organizations might overlook security, we conclude that our findings can help them to identify the weaknesses and improve their security practices. Similarly, mHealth app developers can identify the challenges they face to develop mHealth apps that do not pose security risks for users. Our review is a step towards providing insights into the development of secure mHealth apps. Our proposed conceptual framework can act as a practice guideline for practitioners to enhance secure mHealth app development.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsTelemedicineHealth FacilitiesHumansKnowledgedevelopersmHealth appssecure appssecurity knowledgesystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID34152277
PMCPMC8277314

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.