Evaluation of Mobile Health Applications to Track Patient-Reported Outcomes for Oncology Patients: A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a rapid growth in the use of telehealth/telemedicine that will likely be sustained in the postpandemic setting. Mobile health applications (apps) can be used as part of the telehealth encounter to monitor patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and enhance patient-provider communication. METHODS AND MATERIALS: . Apps were included if they incorporated a symptom tracking function that could allow patients with cancer to record symptoms and PROs. Apps were evaluated using the mobile apps rating scale, which includes engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information, and app subjective quality. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1189 apps, with 101 apps eligible after title and description screening. A total of 41 apps met eligibility criteria and were included in this study. The majority of apps (73%, n = 30) were general health/pain symptom trackers, and 27% (n = 11) were cancer-specific. The app quality mean scores assessed using the mobile apps rating scale ranged from 2.43 to 4.23 (out of 5.00). Only 1 app has been trialed for usability among patients with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Although various symptom tracking apps are available, cancer-specific apps remain limited. Future collaboration between oncologists, app developers, and patients to optimize PRO assessment and integration with telehealth/telemedicine encounters to increase symptom recognition and enhance patient-provider communication is urgently needed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Previous systematic cancer app reviews have highlighted a paucity of content evaluation by health providers and acknowledged that many apps focus on general information for cancer, cancer risk, or content is specific to certain cancer types.
“However, previous systematic cancer app reviews have highlighted a paucity of content evaluation by health providers and acknowledged that many apps focus on general information for cancer, cancer risk, or content is specific to certain cancer types [20][21][22][23].”
From Patient-facing cancer mobile apps that enable patient reported outcome data to be collected: A systematic review of content, functionality, quality, and ability to integrate with electronic health records (2023) · cites this paper as [21]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIntegration of ePROMs into an EHR would further optimise these apps and enhance their role in telemedicine.
“As found in similar systematic app reviews, integration of ePROMs into an EHR would further optimise these apps and enhance their role in telemedicine [21].”
The review added measures such as Flesch-Kincaid metrics and the IMS, which have not been employed in previous app reviews.
“Strengths include the addition of measures, such as the Flesch-Kincaid metrics and the IMS, which have not been employed in previous app reviews [16,21,22].”
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
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
Basch, E., Deal, A. M., Dueck, A. C., Scher, H. I., Kris, M. G., Hudis, C., & Schrag, D. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7156 · Cited by 2,302 · see citing works
Mobile app rating scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps
Stoyanov, S. R., Hides, L., Kavanagh, D. J., Zelenko, O., Tjondronegoro, D., & Mani, M. (2015) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.3422 · Cited by 2,233 · see citing works
Kontos, E., Blake, K. D., Chou, W.-Y. S., & Prestin, A. (2014) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3117 · Cited by 917 · see citing works
Development and validation of the user version of the Mobile application rating scale (uMARS)
Stoyanov, S. R., Hides, L., Kavanagh, D. J., & Wilson, H. (2016) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.5849 · Cited by 872 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- [1]Webster P. Virtual health care in the era of COVID-19 Lancet 395 2020 1180 1181 32278374 PMC7146660
- [2]Lonergan PE, Washington SL, Branagan L, et al. Rapid utilization of telehealth in a comprehensive cancer center as a response to COVID-19. medRxiv:2020.04.10.20061259. PMC7340164 32568721
- [4]Shachar C. Engel J. Elwyn G. Implications for telehealth in a postpandemic future: regulatory and privacy issues JAMA 23 2020 2375 2376 32421170
- [5]Bohme C. von Osthoff M.B. Frey K. Qualitative evaluation of mobile cancer apps with particular attention to the target group, content, and advertising J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 144 2018 173 181 29052039 PMC11813424
- [6]Charbonneau D.H. Hightower S. Katz A. Smartphone apps for cancer: A content analysis of the digital health marketplace Digit Health 6 2020 2055207620905413 PMC7016299 32110428
- [7]Collado-Borrell R. Escudero-Vilaplana V. Ribed-Sanchez A. Smartphone applications for cancer patients; what we know about them? Farm Hosp 40 2016 25 35 26882831
- [11]Birkhoff S.D. Cantrell M.A. Moriarty H. The usability and acceptability of a patient-centered mobile health tracking app among a sample of adult radiation oncology patients ANS Adv Nurs Sci 41 2018 243 259 29474226
- [13]Detmar S.B. Muller M.J. Schornagel J.H. Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: A randomized controlled trial JAMA 288 2002 3027 3034 12479768
- [15]Dehling T. Gao F. Schneider S. Exploring the far side of mobile health: Information security and privacy of mobile health apps on iOS and Android JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 3 2015 e8 25599627 PMC4319144
- [16]Kessel K.A. Vogel M.M. Kessel C. Mobile health in oncology: A patient survey about app-assisted cancer care JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 5 2017 e81 28615159 PMC5489709
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vercell, A., Gasteiger, N., Yorke, J., & Dowding, D. (2023) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104931 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
An Evaluation of Interactive mHealth Applications for Adults Living with Cancer
Wasserman, S., Ould Brahim, L., Attiya, A., Belzile, E., & Lambert, S. D. (2023) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3390/curroncol30080518 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lu, D. J., Girgis, M., David, J. M., Chung, E. M., Atkins, K. M., & Kamrava, M.
- Affiliations
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
- American University of Antigua (AG)
- Corresponding author
- Lu, Diana J.
- Venue
- Advances in Radiation Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 100576
- ISSN
- 2452-1094 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7547022
- OpenAlex
- W3092342718
- Cited by
- 72
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7
- FWCI
- 1.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Advances in Radiation Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Keywords
- mobile health apps, patient-reported outcomes, cancer patients, symptom monitoring, telemedicine, app quality, usability, patient-provider communication, COVID-19 pandemic
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
