Digitale Diabetologie – Die „Epidemiologie“ diabetes-spezifischer mHealth-Apps im Zeitraum von 2015 bis 2018
Abstract
Fragestellung: Weltweit liegt der Smartphone-Nutzer-Anteil derzeit bei ca. 2,5 Milliarden (ca. 33%). Bezogen auf die USA und Deutschland liegt der Anteil aktuell bei jeweils ca. 74% (2015: ca. 59%): Die Altersgruppe der 14 – 29-Jährigen ist mit ca. 93% praktisch gesättigt, die Altersgruppe der > 65-Jährigen ist mit ca. 39% vertreten. Doch wie haben sich von 2015 zu 2018 die Anteile bei den Nutzern der diabetes-spezifischen mHealth-Apps entwickelt? Methodik: Insgesamt wurden 248 mHealth-Apps in „Google Play“ und 200 Apps im „Apple App Store“ analysiert. Die mHealth-App-Beschreibungen wurden nach spezifischen Diabetestypen automatisiert klassifiziert. Ergebnisse: Die Zahl der Installationen liegt aktuell bei 9,4 Mio. („Google Play“) + 5,6 Mio. („Apple App Store“) = 15 Mio. insgesamt. Dabei adressieren 35,2% der Installationen die Klassifikation „Diabetes mellitus Typ 1 (DM 1)“, zzgl. 1,1% „Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults (LADA)“, 47,6% „Diabetes mellitus Typ 2 (DM 2)“ und 32,0% „Gestationsdiabetes (GDM)“. Im Jahr 2015 lag die Zahl der Installationen bei 4,0 Mio. („Google Play“) + 2,7 Mio. („Apple App Store“) = 6,7 Mio. Schlussfolgerungen: Die Zahl der diabetes-spezifischen mHealth-App-Nutzer hat sich seit dem Jahr 2015 mehr als verdoppelt und ist im Verhältnis zu den Smartphone-Nutzern im Allgemeinen überproportional gestiegen. Gemessen an ca. 425 Mio. Diabetikern weltweit ist der Anteil an Nutzern einer diabetes-spezifischen mHealth-App weltweit mit knapp 4% immer noch sehr gering. Bezogen auf die Prävalenz wurden signifikant mehr mHealth-Apps der Klassifikationen „DM 1“ und „GDM“ installiert. Unter demographischen Gesichtspunkten ist zukünftig von einer steigenden Installationszahl bei „DM 2“ auszugehen. Weiteres Wachstum ist durch bessere Integration der mHealth-Apps im Zuge der Digitalisierung in der medizinischen Versorgung zu erwarten.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In 2015, DM-specific mHealth apps had been installed approximately 6.7 million times.
“In 2015, DM-specific mHealth apps had been installed approximately 6.7 million times.”
From Effectiveness of Disease-Specific mHealth Apps in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
Of the mHealth apps that were installed, 47.6% focused on T2DM.
“Of the mHealth apps that were installed, 35.8% focused on T1DM, 47.6% on T2DM, and 32.0% on GDM [29].”
From Effectiveness of Disease-Specific mHealth Apps in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
Of the mHealth apps that were installed, 35.8% focused on T1DM.
“Of the mHealth apps that were installed, 35.8% focused on T1DM, 47.6% on T2DM, and 32.0% on GDM [29].”
From Effectiveness of Disease-Specific mHealth Apps in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
Of the mHealth apps that were installed, 32.0% focused on GDM.
“Of the mHealth apps that were installed, 35.8% focused on T1DM, 47.6% on T2DM, and 32.0% on GDM [29].”
From Effectiveness of Disease-Specific mHealth Apps in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
In 2018, DM-specific mHealth apps had approximately 15 million installations.
“Since then, the number of installations has increased dramatically, with approximately 15 million installations in 2018 [29] and 46.3 million installations in 2019 [30], which represented approximately 11% of patients with DM diagnoses worldwide in 2019 [30].”
From Effectiveness of Disease-Specific mHealth Apps in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Effectiveness of Disease-Specific mHealth Apps in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Scoping Review
Eberle, C., Löhnert, M., & Stichling, S. (2021) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/23477 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
“This underlines the urgent need to improve diabetes care in addition to HCP visits, such as by supporting digital diabetes self-management [24,25]. mHealth apps offer novel possibilities, and first steps have been taken in this regard by a small but growing part of the DM community [26-29].”
InfluentialSelf-citation
- Authors
- Eberle, C., & Ament, C.
- Affiliations
- Fulda University of Applied Sciences (DE)
- University of Augsburg (DE)
- Venue
- Diabetologie und Stoffwechsel
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2018-04
- ISSN
- 1861-9002 (ISSN-L)
- 1861-9010
- OpenAlex
- W2846419881
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 3.82
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- de
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetologie und Stoffwechsel (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Keywords
- diabetes mellitus, mobile health apps, smartphone app usage, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes mellitus, latent autoimmune diabetes in adults, app classification, digital health
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