ArticleJournal of medical systems2025
Systematic Evaluation of Utility and Usability of Publicly Available Mobile Apps for the Early Detection and Monitoring of Infectious Diseases.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe rapid spread of modern outbreaks frequently surpasses the response speed of traditional surveillance and laboratory systems. Mobile apps offer real-time symptom submission, geospatial mapping, and digital contact tracing, which might bridge this gap, yet their epidemiological value and user experience have not been assessed rigorously.
methodsWe developed a novel framework to evaluate utility and usability of surveillance apps. We then demonstrated its use in a proof-of-concept evaluation. An assessment framework with 15 consolidated features was developed from an initial list of 73 identified through the literature and refined by experts. This framework directed the evaluation of available mobile apps for infectious disease surveillance identified via the App Store, Google Play Store, and relevant literature. Two authors applied the criteria independently, and conflicts were panel-resolved (κ = 0.60).
resultsOf the 56 apps screened, 11 met inclusion criteria. Six focused on a single disease, while five tracked multiple diseases. Seven were designed for national use, with four providing global coverage. High-scoring apps combined expert oversight with diverse data sources for broader disease coverage, whereas low performers relied on self-reporting and a single-disease focus. Apps offering user support and customisable alerts scored highest for usability; scores declined when privacy constraints restricted ease of use.
conclusionThis study presents a structured framework to guide evaluation of mobile apps for epidemic surveillance. The evaluation underscores the need to balance epidemiological functionality with user-friendly design and privacy-conscious features. As mobile apps expand in public health, balancing utility and usability is key to adoption and longevity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41420766What 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.