OBJECTIVE: To systematically review mobile applications currently available to patients to support outpatient medication self-management. METHODS: Three online stores were searched in March 2013 using nine distinct search terms. Applications were selected if they supported general outpatient medication self-management for adults; they were excluded if they focused on only one medication or condition, provided only a medication list or reference, only ordered refills, were written in a non-English language, or were for local pharmacy/hospital patients only. A multi-step review process was utilized by two independent reviewers to identify eligible applications. A standardized form was used to abstract data. User reviews were compiled from a subsample of applications and qualitatively coded to identify common criticisms. RESULTS: 14,893 applications were initially identified. After the multi-step review process, 424 applications were deemed eligible for inclusion by reviewers (κ=0.85). On average, applications were rated 2.8 stars (out of 5) from 107 reviews. Almost all provided medication reminders (91.0%), half enabled patients to create a medication history or log (51.5%), and 22% could email the log to a third party. Few helped patients organize their regimen (6.2%), check for drug interactions (2.8%), or identify pills (4.0%). User reviews (N=1091) from the subsample of 26 applications revealed common criticisms, including technical malfunctions, poor compatibility with certain medications, and absence of desired features. CONCLUSIONS: Hundreds of applications exist in the marketplace to support medication self-management. However, their quality, content, and functionality are highly variable. Research is needed to determine optimal capabilities, evaluate utility, and determine clinical benefit.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review mobile applications currently available to patients to support outpatient medication self-management. METHODS: Three online stores were searched in March 2013 using nine distinct search terms. Applications were selected if they supported general outpatient medication self-management for adults; they were excluded if they focused on only one medication or condition, provided only a medication list or reference, only ordered refills, were written in a non-English language, or were for local pharmacy/hospital patients only. A multi-step review process was utilized by two independent reviewers to identify eligible applications. A standardized form was used to abstract data. User reviews were compiled from a subsample of applications and qualitatively coded to identify common criticisms. RESULTS: 14,893 applications were initially identified. After the multi-step review process, 424 applications were deemed eligible for inclusion by reviewers (κ=0.85). On average, applications were rated 2.8 stars (out of 5) from 107 reviews. Almost all provided medication reminders (91.0%), half enabled patients to create a medication history or log (51.5%), and 22% could email the log to a third party. Few helped patients organize their regimen (6.2%), check for drug interactions (2.8%), or identify pills (4.0%). User reviews (N=1091) from the subsample of 26 applications revealed common criticisms, including technical malfunctions, poor compatibility with certain medications, and absence of desired features. CONCLUSIONS: Hundreds of applications exist in the marketplace to support medication self-management. However, their quality, content, and functionality are highly variable. Research is needed to determine optimal capabilities, evaluate utility, and determine clinical benefit.
Entities:
Keywords:
medication management; mobile technology; prescription medication
Authors: Helmut Brath; Jürgen Morak; Thomas Kästenbauer; Robert Modre-Osprian; Hermine Strohner-Kästenbauer; Mark Schwarz; Willem Kort; Günter Schreier Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Charlene C Quinn; Michelle D Shardell; Michael L Terrin; Erik A Barr; Shoshana H Ballew; Ann L Gruber-Baldini Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-07-25 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Sophie C Reid; Sylvia D Kauer; Stephen J C Hearps; Alexander H D Crooke; Angela S Khor; Lena A Sanci; George C Patton Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Stacy C Bailey; Rachel O'Conor; Elizabeth A Bojarski; Rebecca Mullen; Rachel E Patzer; Daniel Vicencio; Kara L Jacobson; Ruth M Parker; Michael S Wolf Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-11-02 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Edwin D Boudreaux; Molly E Waring; Rashelle B Hayes; Rajani S Sadasivam; Sean Mullen; Sherry Pagoto Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Rachel O'Conor; Samuel G Smith; Laura M Curtis; Julia Yoshino Benavente; Daniel P Vicencio; Michael S Wolf Journal: J Aging Health Date: 2016-11-10
Authors: Blake J Lesselroth; Kathleen Adams; Victoria L Church; Stephanie Tallett; Yelizaveta Russ; Jack Wiedrick; Christopher Forsberg; David A Dorr Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Samuel G Smith; Rachel O'Conor; William Aitken; Laura M Curtis; Michael S Wolf; Mita Sanghavi Goel Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-04-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Rebecca Schnall; Jocelyn Patterson Mosley; Sarah J Iribarren; Suzanne Bakken; Alex Carballo-Diéguez; William Brown Iii Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 4.773