Cited by 108Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsCancer survivorship and careDigital Mental Health Interventions

Mobile Phone Apps for Quality of Life and Well-Being Assessment in Breast and Prostate Cancer Patients: Systematic Review

Open access
Rincon, Esther, Monteiro-Guerra, Francisco, Rivera-Romero, Octavio, Dorronzoro-Zubiete, Enrique, Sanchez-Bocanegra, Carlos Luis, Gabarron, Elia·2017·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mobile phone health apps are increasingly gaining attention in oncological care as potential tools for supporting cancer patients. Although the number of publications and health apps focusing on cancer is increasing, there are still few specifically designed for the most prevalent cancers diagnosed: breast and prostate cancers. There is a need to review the effect of these apps on breast and prostate cancer patients' quality of life (QoL) and well-being. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to review the scientific literature on mobile phone apps targeting breast or prostate cancer patients and involving QoL and well-being (anxiety and depression symptoms) and analyze the clinical and technological characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of these apps, as well as patients' user experience with them. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from The Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and MEDLINE to identify studies involving apps focused on breast and/or prostate cancer patients and QoL and/or well-being published between January 1, 2000, and July 12, 2017. Only trial studies which met the inclusion criteria were selected. The systematic review was completed with a critical analysis of the apps previously identified in the health literature research that were available from the official app stores. RESULTS: The systematic review of the literature yielded 3862 articles. After removal of duplicates, 3229 remained and were evaluated on the basis of title and abstract. Of these, 3211 were discarded as not meeting the inclusion criteria, and 18 records were selected for full text screening. Finally, 5 citations were included in this review, with a total of 644 patients, mean age 52.16 years. Four studies targeted breast cancer patients and 1 focused on prostate cancer patients. Four studies referred to apps that assessed QoL. Only 1 among the 5 analyzed apps was available from the official app store. In 3 studies, an app-related intervention was carried out, and 2 of them reported an improvement on QoL. The lengths of the app-related interventions varied from 4 to 12 weeks. Because 2 of the studies only tracked use of the app, no effect on QoL or well-being was found. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the existence of hundreds of studies involving cancer-focused mobile phone apps, there is a lack of rigorous trials regarding the QoL and/or well-being assessment in breast and/or prostate cancer patients. A strong and collective effort should be made by all health care providers to determine those cancer-focused apps that effectively represent useful, accurate, and reliable tools for cancer patients' disease management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017073069; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID= CRD42017073069 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6v38Clb9T).

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/mhealth.8741

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Existing self-management health apps for breast cancer survivors often include features such as survivor education, social networking, and symptom tracking, but studies on their effectiveness are rare and results inconclusive.

    “Existing self-management health apps for breast cancer survivors often include features such as survivor education, social networking, and symptom tracking, but studies on their effectiveness are rare and results inconclusive [33–36].”

    From The BrEasT cancer afTER-CARE (BETTER-CARE) programme to improve breast cancer follow-up: design and feasibility study results of a cluster-randomised complex intervention trial (2024) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results (Clinical and Technological Characteristics; page not provided) describe symptom reporting and social features, and report that two of three intervention studies improved quality of life while one did not. The Discussion (Clinical and Technological Strengths and Weaknesses; page not provided) identifies small samples and a lack of rigorous trials. The paper does not establish survivor education as a common app feature or show that this feature list is typical specifically of apps for breast cancer survivors. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rincon, E., Monteiro-Guerra, F., Rivera-Romero, O., Dorronzoro-Zubiete, E., Sanchez-Bocanegra, C. L., & Gabarron, E.
Affiliations
Universidad de Sevilla (ES)
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2017-12-04
Volume
5
Issue
12
Pages
e187
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2771944080
Cited by
108
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (acceptedVersion)
  • Deposito de Investigacion Universidad de Sevilla (University of Seville) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Repository of Digital Objects for Teaching Research and Culture (University of Valencia) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Repository UCD (University College Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
European Commission (722012, HORIZON2020)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
mobile health apps, breast cancer, prostate cancer, quality of life, well-being, anxiety, depression, cancer patients, user experience, digital health interventions, app store ratings and reviews, app reviews

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