ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
Healthcare professionals' and patients' assessments of listed mobile health apps in China: a qualitative study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Smartphone Apps for Pulmonary Hypertension: Systematic Search and Content Evaluation.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Pooled it
- Application of Narrative and AI-Assisted Follow-Up After Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision: Multicenter, Double-Blind, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Co-Designing a Digital Brain Health Intervention for Chinese Older Adults: A User-Centred Approach.Australasian journal on ageing · 2026Article
- Young adults' perceptions and experiences in using mobile apps and wearables for health: a qualitative study with public involvement.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Patient and Clinician Attitudes Toward Mobile Health Apps: Qualitative Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Digital engagement and physical activity patterns across Chinese populations: a secondary analysis of national survey data.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Low-Tech Telemedicine Reduces Caregiver Burden and Improves Outcomes in Older Adults with Chronic Diseases: Results from a Prospective Study in Romania.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Factors that influence the preferences for telehealth among family caregivers of disabled elders: a qualitative study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Article
- Insights into the Technological Evolution and Research Trends of Mobile Health: Bibliometric Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery concept process optimization on the perioperative period of gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.BMC women's health · 2025Observational
- Experience of Older Patients with COPD Using Disease Management Apps: A Qualitative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Patient Participation in Medication Safety for Noncommunicable Diseases: A Qualitative Study of General Practitioners, Pharmacists, and Outpatients' Perspectives in Beijing.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, mobile health (mHealth) has gradually developed in China, and intelligent medicine has become an important research topic. However, there are still significant problems in mHealth applications (apps). Although healthcare professionals and patients are the main users, few studies have focused on their perceptions of the quality of mHealth apps. Objective: This study aimed to (1) understand the respective perceptions of healthcare professionals and patients regarding mHealth apps, (2) assess what barriers exist that influence the user experience, and (3) explore how to improve the quality of mHealth apps and the development of the mHealth market in China. The study aims to promote the standardization of mHealth apps and provide effective information for the improvement and development of mHealth apps in the future. Methods: Semistructured interviews with 9 patients and 14 healthcare professionals were conducted from January 2022 to April 2022 in the Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University. The participants used mHealth apps for more than 3 months, including the "Good Mood" and "Peace and Safe Doctors" apps and apps developed by the hospital that were popular in China. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: The following five themes were extracted: different concerns, hidden medical dangers, distance and insecurity, barriers for older people, and having positive perceptions of mHealth apps. Healthcare professionals prioritized simplicity in regard to mHealth apps, whereas patients rated effectiveness as the most crucial factor. The study also revealed several problems with mHealth apps, including insufficient information about physician qualifications, inaccurate medical content, nonstandard treatment processes, and unclear accountability, which led to a sense of distance and insecurity among participants. Older individuals faced additional obstacles when using mHealth apps. Despite these issues, the participants remained optimistic about the future of mHealth app development. Conclusion: The utilization, advantages, and obstacles of mHealth applications for healthcare professionals and patients were explored through semistructured interviews. Despite the promising prospects for mHealth apps in China, numerous issues still need to be addressed. Enhancing the safety monitoring system and developing user-friendly mHealth apps for older adult patients are essential steps to bridge the gap between healthcare providers and patients.
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.