Cited by 160Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesDigital Mental Health Interventions

Mobile apps to support the self-management of hypertension: systematic review of effectiveness, usability, and user satisfaction

Open access
Alessa, Tourkiah, Abdi, Sarah, Hawley, Mark S, de Witte, Luc·2018·JMIR mhealth and uhealth

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a chronic disease that is considered to be a public health problem and requires efforts by patients to manage themselves. The global growth in the use of mobile phones and tablets has been accompanied by the increased use of health apps. Many of these apps support the self-management of hypertension and, therefore, they have the potential benefits of lowering blood pressure. Despite this, there is currently a lack of evidence for their effectiveness, usability, and patient satisfaction with their use. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to assess the effectiveness of apps in lowering blood pressure, as well as their usability and patients' satisfaction with their use. METHODS: We conducted searches in the following databases: MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), IEEE Xplore ASSIAN, Google Scholar and the main Arabic databases Al Manhal, AskZad, and Mandumah. We looked for studies that used apps in the self-management of hypertension from 2008-2016. We also checked the reference lists of the review papers and all the primary studies for additional references. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies with a total of 3112 participants were included in the review. Of the 14 studies that assessed the effectiveness of the apps in lowering blood pressure, 10 (71.4%) studies (6 RCTs and 4 nonrandomized studies) reported that using the apps led to significant decreases in blood pressure and seemed to be effective in the self-management of hypertension. Of these 10, only 2 (20%) RCTs and 3 (30%) nonrandomized studies had a low-moderate risk of bias. The results of this review are inconclusive regarding which combinations of functionalities would be most effective in lowering blood pressure because of variation in the studies' quality, but the data suggest that apps incorporating more comprehensive functionalities are likely to be more effective. In all the studies that assessed the usability of the apps and users' acceptance of them, all the apps seemed to be accepted and easy to use. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the studies reported that apps might be effective in lowering blood pressure and are accepted by users. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as most of the studies had a high risk of bias. More well-designed, large-scale studies are required to evaluate the real effect of using apps in lowering blood pressure and to identify the most effective functionality combinations for lowering blood pressure.

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 · 10.2196/10723

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.

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 160

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [12]Eren H Webster J CRC Press Telehealth and mobile health CRC Press 2016 Florida USA CRC Press 978 1
  2. [20]Higgins J Green S Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 2011 2018-06-09 Oxford The Cochrane Collaboration http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/
  3. [23]Booth A Sutton A Papaioannou D Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. 2nd ed 2016 London, UK Sage

Authors
Alessa, T., Abdi, S., Hawley, M. S., & de Witte, L.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Venue
JMIR mhealth and uhealth
Published
2018-07-23
Volume
6
Issue
7
Pages
e10723
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808463023
Cited by
160
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • 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 › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
hypertension, mobile health apps, self-management, blood pressure reduction, usability, user satisfaction, app acceptance, chronic disease management, app functionality, risk of bias, digital health interventions, Arab world, low- and middle-income countries, health literacy, medication adherence, blood pressure monitoring, health behavior change

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