Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41955460›Full record

Observational studyJMIR mHealth and uHealth2026

Trust and Use of Recommendations for Health Apps Among European Residents: Cross-Sectional Survey.

Mariam Shokralla, Romy Fleur Willemsen, Marise Jeannine Kasteleyn, Niels Chavannes, Esther Talboom-Kamp

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Mariam ShokrallaNational eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Center, Hippocratespad 21, Leiden, 2333 ZD, The Netherlands, 31 639358359.ORCID 0000-0002-3052-2606
Romy Fleur WillemsenNational eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Center, Hippocratespad 21, Leiden, 2333 ZD, The Netherlands, 31 639358359.ORCID 0000-0002-2038-8175
Marise Jeannine KasteleynNational eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Center, Hippocratespad 21, Leiden, 2333 ZD, The Netherlands, 31 639358359.ORCID 0000-0001-7751-7516
Niels ChavannesNational eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Center, Hippocratespad 21, Leiden, 2333 ZD, The Netherlands, 31 639358359.ORCID 0000-0002-8607-9199
Esther Talboom-KampNational eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Center, Hippocratespad 21, Leiden, 2333 ZD, The Netherlands, 31 639358359.ORCID 0000-0001-9917-9052

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There is growing recognition of the role of health apps in addressing health care system challenges, yet app quality and evidence vary widely, and consumers have little decision support at the point of download. Objective: This study aimed to explore which sources of recommendations European residents use and trust when choosing health apps and whether residents support government review and rating of health apps. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey (December 7, 2022, to February 16, 2023) in 26 languages targeting residents of the European Economic Area, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine. The survey contained 11 questions covering demographics, types of apps used, sources of advice used and trusted, and views on government review and rating. We included only fully completed responses (N=1228). Descriptive statistics are presented as counts and percentages. For subgroup analyses, we dichotomized trust responses ("I trust" vs other responses) and tested associations with gender (Fisher exact test), age group, and education level (chi-square test); an adjusted significance threshold was applied (P<.004) to account for multiple testing. We followed the CHERRIES (Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) guidelines for reporting online surveys and STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) recommendations for observational studies. Results: A total of 1228 respondents from 33 countries completed the survey; 1110 (90.4%) reported using one or more health apps. COVID-19 apps (763/1228, 62.1%) and activity apps (737/1228, 60.0%) were the most frequently used, whereas disease management (86/1228, 7.0%), diagnostic (77/1228, 6.3%), and treatment apps (70/1228, 5.7%) were the least used. Sources used to choose apps included family and friends (434/1228, 35.3%), health professionals (412/1228, 33.6%), and government or health authorities (358/1228, 29.2%). The most trusted sources were health professionals (987/1228, 80.4%), pharmacists (750/1228, 61.1%), and government or health authorities (736/1228, 59.9%). No statistically significant differences in trust by gender were observed (all P>.0038). Some differences by age and education were observed for select sources (eg, government or health authorities: χ21=8.546; P=.003; family and friends: χ2=19.133; P<.001). Overall, 1060 (86.3%) of 1228 respondents supported government review and rating of health apps (either directly or by commissioning another organization). Conclusions: In this large multilingual European survey, most respondents reported experience with health apps and placed greatest trust in health professionals, pharmacists, and government or health authorities, yet professional recommendations were used less often than informal sources. There is clear public support for government-led review and rating schemes to guide consumer choice. Efforts to make trustworthy, easy-to-find information available at the point of download and to support health care professionals in recommending high-quality apps could help bridge the gap between trusted and used sources.

Indexed as

European PeopleMobile ApplicationsAdultAgedConsumer Health InformaticsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGovernment RegulationHumansMaleMiddle AgedTelemedicineTrustapp assessmenthealth appsISO 82304‑2recommendationstrust

Identifiers

PMID41955460
PMCPMC13064958

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.