ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
Supporting family care: a scoping app review.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- An app-based just-in-time-adaptive self-management intervention for care partners: The CareQOL feasibility pilot study.Rehabilitation psychology · 2022Trial
- Web-Based Application to Support Caregivers in the Use of Learning Optimization Methods: Participatory Action Research Study.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Designing an AI companion to support informal caregivers in role transition: insights from a design science approach.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Families' opinions about their involvement in care during hospitalization: a mixed-methods study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- [An app for informal care : User experiences and obstacles from the perspective of family caregivers].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2023Review
- Designing and Evaluating IT Applications for Informal Caregivers: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMobile applications (apps) may provide family caregivers of people with chronic diseases and conditions with access to support and good information. However, thorough understanding of how these apps meet the main needs and requirements of the users is currently lacking. The aim of this study was to review the currently available apps for family caregivers and evaluate their relevance to main domains of caregiving activities, caregivers' personal needs, and caregivers' groups found in previous research on family caregivers.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review on English-language and German-language apps for family caregivers on two major app stores: Google Play Store and iOS App Store. Apps were included if the main target group were family caregivers. Data were extracted from the app descriptions provided by the app producers in the app stores.
resultsThe majority of the apps was designed to assist caregivers in their caregiving activities. Apps were rarely tailored to specific groups of family caregivers such as young carers and their needs. Further, apps addressing caregivers' personal health, financial security, and work issues were scarce. Commercial apps dominated the market, often intermediating paid services or available for users of specific hardware. Public and non-profit organizations provided best-rated and free-of-charge apps but had a very limited range of services with focus on caregivers' health and training.
conclusionsOur results indicate that current apps for family caregivers do not distinguish specific groups of family caregivers, also they rarely address caregivers' personal needs.
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.