ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2024
Evaluation of an mHealth App on Self-Management of Osteoporosis: Prospective Survey Study.
Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and effectiveness of a digital voice assistant for improving anti-osteoporosis medication adherence, and osteoporosis knowledge and attitudes, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: A 12-month randomised controlled trial.Archives of osteoporosis · 2025Trial
- Measuring eHealth Literacy in the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Psychosomatic interplay in postmenopausal osteoporosis: from neuroendocrine mechanisms to structured psychological therapies and long-term management.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Usability and User Experience of a Digital Platform Prototype (Healthy Bone) to Promote Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Treatment in Patients With Osteoporosis: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMobile health (mHealth) technologies can be used for disease-specific self-management, and these technologies are experiencing rapid growth in the health care industry. They use mobile devices, specifically smartphone apps, to enhance and support medical and public health practices. In chronic disease management, the use of apps in the realm of mHealth holds the potential to improve health outcomes. This is also true for mHealth apps on osteoporosis, but the usage and patients' experiences with these apps are underexplored.
objectiveThis prospective survey study aimed to investigate the eHealth literacy of Danish patients with osteoporosis, as well as the usability and acceptability of the app "My Bones."
methodsData on patient characteristics, disease knowledge, eHealth literacy, usability, and acceptability were collected using self-administered questionnaires at baseline, 2 months, and 6 months. The following validated questionnaires were used: eHealth Literacy Questionnaire, System Usability Scale, and Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire.
resultsMean scores for eHealth literacy ranged from 2.6 to 3.1, with SD ranging from 0.5 to 0.6 across the 7 domains. The mean (SD) System Usability Scale score was 74.7 (14.4), and the mean (SD) scores for domains 1, 2, and 6 of the Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire were 3.4 (1.2), 4.5 (1.1), 4.1 (1.2), respectively.
conclusionsDanish patients with osteoporosis are both motivated and capable of using digital health services. The app's usability was acceptable, and it has the potential to reduce visits to general practitioner clinics, enhance health outcomes, and serve as a valuable addition to regular health or social care services.
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.