Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36422096›Full record

ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022

Perception about Health Applications (Apps) in Smartphones towards Telemedicine during COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Lingala Kalyan Viswanath Reddy, Pallavi Madithati, Bayapa Reddy Narapureddy, Sahithya Ravali Ravula, Sunil Kumar Vaddamanu, Fahad Hussain Alhamoudi, Giuseppe Minervini, Saurabh Chaturvedi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 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. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

8 authors.

Lingala Kalyan Viswanath ReddyDepartment of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Saudi Electronic University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-9506-8766
Pallavi MadithatiDepartment of Biochemistry, Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Chittoor 517001, India.
Bayapa Reddy NarapureddyDepartment of Public Health, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia.
Sahithya Ravali RavulaDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, SRM College of Pharmacy, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai 600002, India.
Sunil Kumar VaddamanuDepartment of Dental Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia.
Fahad Hussain AlhamoudiDental Technology Department, College of Applied Medical Science, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-8391-1787
Giuseppe MinerviniMultidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Via Luigi de Crecchio 6, 80138 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8309-1272
Saurabh ChaturvediDepartment of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-7832-3772

Funding

King Khalid University RGP.2/216/43
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of health applications (apps) in smartphones increased exponentially during COVID-19. This study was conducted the with the aim to understand the factors that determine the consumer's perception of health apps in smartphones towards telemedicine during COVID-19 and to test any relation between these factors and consumers towards Telemedicine in India.

methodsThis questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted from July 2021 to December 2021 in India. Out of 600 selected participants, 594 responded and in that 535 valid questionnaires were measured. The questionnaire consists of close-ended responses, with the first part consisting of demographic information, the second part consisting of questions associated with consumers' perceptions and the third part kept for suggestions and complaints. The questionnaire was distributed using digital platforms via WhatsApp or email. A 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree' (5) to strongly disagree (1) was used to record responses.

resultsResults revealed a high response rate of 90%. The highest score was obtained for the question assessing the satisfaction of the users towards health apps [1175 = 500 (agree-4) + 675 (Strongly agree-5)]. The interface of the app scored very low, showing disagreement (514) with app functionality, and was the most common disadvantage as perceived by patients. The mean scores of reliabilities and vicinity of health services; efficacy and comprehensive health information; development and improvement of health apps and telemedicine (3.24, 3.18, 3.62, 3.49), respectively, show the difference in attraction existing between groups. There is a strong positive correlation between the variables except for efficacy and comprehensive information about health and Telemedicine (-0.249), development and improvement of health apps, and reliability and vicinity of health services (-0.344) which have a negative correlation.

conclusionsThe findings of this survey reveal a positive outlook of health apps toward telemedicine. This research also found a strong forecaster of the consumer's perception of health apps in smartphones towards telemedicine. In the broad spectrum, the future of health app affiliates for telemedicine is better affected by the consumer's perception of health app efficacy. This study suggests that health app marketers develop more innovative apps to increase usage and help consumers.

Indexed as

consumersCOVID-19health applicationsperceptionsmartphonestelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID36422096
PMCPMC9697835

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.