ArticleBMC health services research2024
The use of medical health applications by primary care physicians in Israel: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Implementation and benefits of healthcare apps in surgical disciplines-A Delphi expert consensus].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- mHealth knowledge and usage in maternal healthcare delivery: perspectives and experiences of healthcare practitioners in Ghana.BMJ open · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of medical health applications (mHealth apps) by patients, caregivers, and physicians is widespread. mHealth apps are often employed by physicians to quickly access professional knowledge, guide treatment, easily retrieve medical records, and monitor and manage patients. This study sought to characterize the use of mHealth apps among primary care physicians (PCPs) in Israel. The reasons for using apps and barriers to their use were also investigated.
methodsFrom all MHS' PCPs, we randomly selected 700 PCPs and invited them to complete a questionnaire regarding the use of mHealth apps and attitudes toward them.
resultsFrom August 2020 to December 2020, 191 physicians completed the questionnaire (response rate 27.3%). 68.0% of PCPs reported using mHealth apps. Telemedicine service apps were the most frequently used. Medical calculators (used for clinical scoring) and differential diagnosis apps were the least frequently used. The most common reason for mHealth app use was accessibility, followed by time saved and a sense of information reliability. Among infrequent users of apps, the most common barriers reported were unfamiliarity with relevant apps and preference for using a computer. Concerns regarding information reliability were rarely reported by PCPs. Physician gender and seniority were not related to mHealth app use. Physician age was related to the use of mHealth apps.
conclusionsmHealth apps are widely used by PCPs in this study, regardless of physician gender or seniority. Information from mHealth apps is considered reliable by PCPs. The main barrier to app use is unfamiliarity with relevant apps and preference for computer use.
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.