Cited by 288Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsAsthma and respiratory diseasesDigital Mental Health Interventions

Smartphone and tablet self management apps for asthma

Open access
Marcano Belisario, José S, Huckvale, Kit, Greenfield, Geva, Car, Josip, Gunn, Laura H·2013·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Asthma is one of the most common long-term conditions worldwide, which places considerable pressure on patients, communities and health systems. The major international clinical guidelines now recommend the inclusion of self management programmes in the routine management of patients with asthma. These programmes have been associated with improved outcomes in patients with asthma. However, the implementation of self management programmes in clinical practice, and their uptake by patients, is still poor. Recent developments in mobile technology, such as smartphone and tablet computer apps, could help develop a platform for the delivery of self management interventions that are highly customisable, low-cost and easily accessible. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of using smartphone and tablet apps to facilitate the self management of individuals with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register (CAGR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Health Library, Compendex/Inspec/Referex, IEEEXplore, ACM Digital Library, CiteSeer(x) and CAB abstracts via Web of Knowledge. We also searched registers of current and ongoing trials and the grey literature. We checked the reference lists of all primary studies and review articles for additional references. We searched for studies published from 2000 onwards. The latest search was run in June 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared self management interventions for patients with clinician-diagnosed asthma delivered via smartphone apps to self management interventions delivered via traditional methods (e.g. paper-based asthma diaries). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Our primary outcomes were symptom scores; frequency of healthcare visits due to asthma exacerbations or complications and health-related quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs with a total of 408 participants. We found no cluster RCTs, controlled before and after studies or interrupted time series studies that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Both RCTs evaluated the effect of a mobile phone-based asthma self management intervention on asthma control by comparing it to traditional, paper-based asthma self management. One study allowed participants to keep daily entries of their asthma symptoms, asthma medication usage, peak flow readings and peak flow variability on their mobile phone, from which their level of asthma control was calculated remotely and displayed together with the corresponding asthma self management recommendations. In the other study, participants recorded the same readings twice daily, and they received immediate self management feedback in the form of a three-colour traffic light display on their phones. Participants falling into the amber zone of their action plan twice, or into the red zone once, received a phone call from an asthma nurse who enquired about the reasons for their uncontrolled asthma.We did not conduct a meta-analysis of the data extracted due to the considerable degree of heterogeneity between these studies. Instead we adopted a narrative synthesis approach. Overall, the results were inconclusive and we judged the evidence to have a GRADE rating of low quality because further evidence is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. In addition, there was not enough information in one of the included studies to assess the risk of bias for the majority of the domains. Although the other included study was methodologically rigorous, it was not possible to blind participants or personnel in the study. Moreover, there are concerns in both studies in relation to attrition bias and other sources of bias.One study showed that the use of a smartphone app for the delivery of an asthma self management programme had no statistically significant effect on asthma symptom scores (mean difference (MD) 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.25), asthma-related quality of life (MD of mean scores 0.02, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.39), unscheduled visits to the emergency department (OR 7.20, 95% CI 0.37 to 140.76) or frequency of hospital admissions (odds ratio (OR) 3.07, 95% CI 0.32 to 29.83). The other included study found that the use of a smartphone app resulted in higher asthma-related quality of life scores at six-month follow-up (MD 5.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 9.52 for the physical component score of the SF-12 questionnaire; MD 6.00, 95% CI 2.51 to 9.49 for the mental component score of the SF-12 questionnaire), improved lung function (PEFR) at four (MD 27.80, 95% CI 4.51 to 51.09), five (MD 31.40, 95% CI 8.51 to 54.29) and six months (MD 39.20, 95% CI 16.58 to 61.82), and reduced visits to the emergency department due to a

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd010013.pub2

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Ryan D, Pinnock H, Lee AJ, Tarassenko L, Ayansina D, Musgrave S, et al. Can your mobile phone help your asthma: preliminary results. Primary Care Respiratory Journal 2010;19(2):A15. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gupta S, Chang P, Anyigbo N, Sabharwal A. mobileSpiro: Portable open‐interface spirometry for Android. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Wireless Health. 2011:Article No. 24.
  3. Gupta S, Chang P, Anyigbo N, Sabharwal A. mobileSpiro: Accurate mobile spirometry for self‐management of asthma. Proceedings of the First ACM Workshop on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services for Healthcare. 2011:Article No. 1.
  4. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Review Group. Data collection checklist. http://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/datacollectionchecklist.pdf (accessed March 2012).
  5. Istepanian R, Laxminarayan S, Pattichis CS (editors). M‐Health: Emerging Mobile Health Systems. Springer, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pearce N, Sunyer J, Cheng S, Chinn S, Bjorksten B, Burr M, et al. Comparison of asthma prevalence in the ISAAC and the ECRHS. European Respiratory Journal 2000;16(3):420‐6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marcano Belisario, J. S., Huckvale, K., Greenfield, G., Car, J., & Gunn, L. H.
Affiliations
  • School of Public Health, Imperial College London; Global eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health; London UK
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Ljubljana (SI)
  • Stetson University (US)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-11-27
Volume
2013
Issue
11
Pages
CD010013-CD010013
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1480140759
Cited by
288
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
asthma, self-management, mobile health apps, mobile application, tablet application, asthma control, asthma exacerbations, health-related quality of life, peak expiratory flow, asthma diary, cost-effectiveness, feasibility, chronic disease, patient education, medication adherence, symptom monitoring, remote monitoring, clinical implementation
MeSH terms
Asthma, Humans, Self Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Computers, Handheld, Cell Phone, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review