Prescribable mHealth apps identified from an overview of systematic reviews

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

103 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Mobile health apps aimed towards patients are an emerging field of mHealth. Their potential for improving self-management of chronic conditions is significant. Here, we propose a concept of “prescribable” mHealth apps, defined as apps that are currently available, proven effective, and preferably stand-alone, i.e., that do not require dedicated central servers and continuous monitoring by medical professionals. Our objectives were to conduct an overview of systematic reviews to identify such apps, assess the evidence of their effectiveness, and to determine the gaps and limitations in mHealth app research. We searched four databases from 2008 onwards and the Journal of Medical Internet Research for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of stand-alone health apps. We identified 6 systematic reviews including 23 RCTs evaluating 22 available apps that mostly addressed diabetes, mental health and obesity. Most trials were pilots with small sample size and of short duration. Risk of bias of the included reviews and trials was high. Eleven of the 23 trials showed a meaningful effect on health or surrogate outcomes attributable to apps. In conclusion, we identified only a small number of currently available stand-alone apps that have been evaluated in RCTs. The overall low quality of the evidence of effectiveness greatly limits the prescribability of health apps. mHealth apps need to be evaluated by more robust RCTs that report between-group differences before becoming prescribable. Systematic reviews should incorporate sensitivity analysis of trials with high risk of bias to better summarize the evidence, and should adhere to the relevant reporting guideline.
Original languageEnglish
Article number12
Pages (from-to)12
Number of pages12
Journalnpj Digital Medicine
Volume1
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 9 May 2018

Fingerprint

Telemedicine
Application programs
Randomized Controlled Trials
Health
Mobile Applications
Self Care
Internet
Sample Size
Biomedical Research
Mental Health
Obesity
mHealth
Databases
Guidelines
Research
Medical problems
Sensitivity analysis
Servers

Cite this

@article{a86c7a2f28174979b703840621369ebf,
title = "Prescribable mHealth apps identified from an overview of systematic reviews",
abstract = "Mobile health apps aimed towards patients are an emerging field of mHealth. Their potential for improving self-management of chronic conditions is significant. Here, we propose a concept of “prescribable” mHealth apps, defined as apps that are currently available, proven effective, and preferably stand-alone, i.e., that do not require dedicated central servers and continuous monitoring by medical professionals. Our objectives were to conduct an overview of systematic reviews to identify such apps, assess the evidence of their effectiveness, and to determine the gaps and limitations in mHealth app research. We searched four databases from 2008 onwards and the Journal of Medical Internet Research for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of stand-alone health apps. We identified 6 systematic reviews including 23 RCTs evaluating 22 available apps that mostly addressed diabetes, mental health and obesity. Most trials were pilots with small sample size and of short duration. Risk of bias of the included reviews and trials was high. Eleven of the 23 trials showed a meaningful effect on health or surrogate outcomes attributable to apps. In conclusion, we identified only a small number of currently available stand-alone apps that have been evaluated in RCTs. The overall low quality of the evidence of effectiveness greatly limits the prescribability of health apps. mHealth apps need to be evaluated by more robust RCTs that report between-group differences before becoming prescribable. Systematic reviews should incorporate sensitivity analysis of trials with high risk of bias to better summarize the evidence, and should adhere to the relevant reporting guideline.",
author = "Oyungerel Byambasuren and Sanders, {Sharon L} and Beller, {Elaine M} and Glasziou, {Paul P}",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1038/s41746-018-0021-9",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "12",
journal = "npj Digital Medicine",
issn = "2398-6352",
publisher = "Nature Research",
number = "1",

}

Prescribable mHealth apps identified from an overview of systematic reviews. / Byambasuren, Oyungerel; Sanders, Sharon L; Beller, Elaine M; Glasziou, Paul P.

In: npj Digital Medicine, Vol. 1, No. 1, 12, 09.05.2018, p. 12.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prescribable mHealth apps identified from an overview of systematic reviews

AU - Byambasuren, Oyungerel

AU - Sanders, Sharon L

AU - Beller, Elaine M

AU - Glasziou, Paul P

PY - 2018/5/9

Y1 - 2018/5/9

N2 - Mobile health apps aimed towards patients are an emerging field of mHealth. Their potential for improving self-management of chronic conditions is significant. Here, we propose a concept of “prescribable” mHealth apps, defined as apps that are currently available, proven effective, and preferably stand-alone, i.e., that do not require dedicated central servers and continuous monitoring by medical professionals. Our objectives were to conduct an overview of systematic reviews to identify such apps, assess the evidence of their effectiveness, and to determine the gaps and limitations in mHealth app research. We searched four databases from 2008 onwards and the Journal of Medical Internet Research for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of stand-alone health apps. We identified 6 systematic reviews including 23 RCTs evaluating 22 available apps that mostly addressed diabetes, mental health and obesity. Most trials were pilots with small sample size and of short duration. Risk of bias of the included reviews and trials was high. Eleven of the 23 trials showed a meaningful effect on health or surrogate outcomes attributable to apps. In conclusion, we identified only a small number of currently available stand-alone apps that have been evaluated in RCTs. The overall low quality of the evidence of effectiveness greatly limits the prescribability of health apps. mHealth apps need to be evaluated by more robust RCTs that report between-group differences before becoming prescribable. Systematic reviews should incorporate sensitivity analysis of trials with high risk of bias to better summarize the evidence, and should adhere to the relevant reporting guideline.

AB - Mobile health apps aimed towards patients are an emerging field of mHealth. Their potential for improving self-management of chronic conditions is significant. Here, we propose a concept of “prescribable” mHealth apps, defined as apps that are currently available, proven effective, and preferably stand-alone, i.e., that do not require dedicated central servers and continuous monitoring by medical professionals. Our objectives were to conduct an overview of systematic reviews to identify such apps, assess the evidence of their effectiveness, and to determine the gaps and limitations in mHealth app research. We searched four databases from 2008 onwards and the Journal of Medical Internet Research for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of stand-alone health apps. We identified 6 systematic reviews including 23 RCTs evaluating 22 available apps that mostly addressed diabetes, mental health and obesity. Most trials were pilots with small sample size and of short duration. Risk of bias of the included reviews and trials was high. Eleven of the 23 trials showed a meaningful effect on health or surrogate outcomes attributable to apps. In conclusion, we identified only a small number of currently available stand-alone apps that have been evaluated in RCTs. The overall low quality of the evidence of effectiveness greatly limits the prescribability of health apps. mHealth apps need to be evaluated by more robust RCTs that report between-group differences before becoming prescribable. Systematic reviews should incorporate sensitivity analysis of trials with high risk of bias to better summarize the evidence, and should adhere to the relevant reporting guideline.

U2 - 10.1038/s41746-018-0021-9

DO - 10.1038/s41746-018-0021-9

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 12

JO - npj Digital Medicine

JF - npj Digital Medicine

SN - 2398-6352

IS - 1

M1 - 12

ER -