CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 166Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsAsthma and respiratory diseases

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The evolution of mobile apps for asthma: an updated systematic assessment of content and tools

Open access
Huckvale, Kit, Morrison, Cecily, Ouyang, Jing, Ghaghda, Aseem, Car, Josip·2015·BMC Medicine
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0303-xPMC PMC4391129
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interest in mobile apps that support long-term conditions such as asthma is matched by recognition of the importance of the quality and safety of apps intended for patient use. We assessed how changes over a 2-year period affected the clinical suitability of apps providing self-management information and tools for people with asthma by updating a review first performed in 2011. METHODS: Systematic content assessment of all apps for iOS and Android examining the comprehensiveness of asthma information, consistency with the evidence base for asthma self-management and adherence to best practice principles for trustworthy content, comparing the quality of apps available in 2011 to those released since. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2013, numbers of asthma apps more than doubled from 93 to 191, despite withdrawal of 25% (n = 23/93) of existing apps. Newer apps were no more likely than those available in 2011 to include comprehensive information, such as the use of action plans, or offer guidance consistent with evidence; 13% (n = 19/147) of all apps, and 39% (n = 9/23) of those intended to manage acute asthma, recommended self-care procedures unsupported by evidence. Despite increases in the numbers of apps targeting specific skills, such as acute asthma management (n = 12 to 23) and inhaler technique (from n = 2 to 12), the proportion consistent with guidelines (17%, n = 4/23) and inhaler instructions (25%, n = 3/12), respectively, was low, and most apps provided only either basic information about asthma (50%, n = 75/147) or simple diary functions (24%, n = 36/147). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to persisting questions about clinical quality and safety, dynamic aspects of app turnover and feature evolution affect the suitability of asthma apps for use in routine care. The findings underline the need for coordinated quality assurance processes that can adapt to changing clinical and information governance-related risks, ensure compliance with the evidence base and reflect local variations in clinical practice. It is unclear if substantial clinical benefits can be realized from a landscape dominated by low quality generic information apps and tools that do not adhere to accepted medical practice.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/s12916-015-0303-x

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Flowchart of app selection process. Flowchart details the process of selecting individual apps for inclusion in the study. After evaluation of 191 apps, duplicates available on both iOS and Android (n = 24) and, when more fully featured versions were available, ‘lite’ or demonstration versions (n = 20) were excluded, leaving 147 unique apps for subsequent analysis.
Figure 1 Flowchart of app selection process. Flowchart details the process of selecting individual apps for inclusion in the study. After evaluation of 191 apps, duplicates available on both iOS and Android (n = 24) and, when more fully featured versions were available, ‘lite’ or demonstration versions (n = 20) were excluded, leaving 147 unique apps for subsequent analysis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Growth in numbers of asthma apps. Plot shows the total number of available apps for asthma against time, based on the original release date, for the period 2009 to mid-2013. Withdrawals are accounted for. Vertical lines indicate the dates of the 2011 and 2013 surveys. Data were not available for 5 apps; therefore, final n = 186.
Figure 2 Growth in numbers of asthma apps. Plot shows the total number of available apps for asthma against time, based on the original release date, for the period 2009 to mid-2013. Withdrawals are accounted for. Vertical lines indicate the dates of the 2011 and 2013 surveys. Data were not available for 5 apps; therefore, final n = 186.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Aitken M, Gauntlett C. Patient apps for improved healthcare – from novelty to mainstream. Parsippany, NJ: IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics; 2013.
  2. Digitas Health. mBook 2013 edition – marketing mobile health. 2013. http://m.2013.digitashealth.com/Mbook2013_web.pdf .
  3. England NHS. Five year forward view. London: HM Government; 2014.
  4. Alliance ECD. Green paper on mHealth apps – input from the European Chronic Disease Alliance (ECDA). Brussels: ECDA; 2014.
  5. Food US, Administration D. Mobile medical applications – guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff. US Department of Health and Human Services: Rockville, MD; 2013.
  6. Ferrero-Alvarez-Rementeria J, Santana-Lopez V, Escobar-Ubreva A, Vazquez-Vazquez M. Quality and safety strategy for mobile health applications: a certification programme. Eur J ePractice. 2013;21:14–26.
  7. Health on the Net Foundation. Operational definition of the HONcode principles. Guidelines v2.0. http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Guidelines/guidelines.html#Review .
  8. Food US, Administration D. Appendix A – examples of mobile apps that are not medical devices. Mobile Medical Applications – Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Huckvale, K., Morrison, C., Ouyang, J., Ghaghda, A., & Car, J.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Corresponding author
  • Huckvale, Kit
  • Car, Josip
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-03-23
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
58-58
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12916-015-0303-x
PMC
PMC4391129
OpenAlex
W2150664025
Cited by
166
References
56
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 7
FWCI
51.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
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 › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Asthma and respiratory diseases
Keywords
asthma, mobile health apps, asthma self-management, app quality, evidence-based recommendations, inhaler technique, action plan, acute asthma management, quality assurance, patient information tools
MeSH terms
Asthma, Humans, Self Care, 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