Sandra M Coulon1, Courtney M Monroe2, Delia S West2. 1. Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. Electronic address: coulon@mailbox.sc.edu. 2. Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Abstract
CONTEX: Chronic stress presents a growing, pervasive burden in healthcare, and mobile smartphone applications (apps) have the potential to deliver evidence-based stress management strategies. This review identified and evaluated stress management apps across domains of (1) evidence-based content; (2) transparency in app development; and (3) functionality of the app interface. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The iOS App Store was systematically searched. Apps with descriptions indicating that they targeted the intended audience and included evidence-related terminology, at least one evidence-based stress management strategy, and behavior change components were downloaded and evaluated by two independent raters across the three domains of evidence-based content, transparency, and functionality. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 902 apps were identified based on 21 searches. Of these, 60 met study criteria and were downloaded and evaluated between April and June 2015. Twenty (33%) ultimately did not deliver an evidence-based strategy. Of the delivered strategies, the most common were mindfulness and meditation (73%) and diaphragmatic breathing (25%). On average, apps addressed half of the transparency criteria, and nearly all (85%) were acceptable across usability criteria. A total of 32 apps included both evidence-based content and exhibited no problems with usability or functionality; apps affiliated with a non-profit, research-engaged institution comprised 31% of these. CONCLUSIONS: This review evaluated 60 iOS apps for stress management across domains of evidence-based content, transparency, and functionality; these apps have the potential to effectively supplement medical care. Findings further indicate that a comprehensive, multi-domain approach can distinguish apps that use evidence-based strategies from those that do not.
CONTEX: Chronic stress presents a growing, pervasive burden in healthcare, and mobile smartphone applications (apps) have the potential to deliver evidence-based stress management strategies. This review identified and evaluated stress management apps across domains of (1) evidence-based content; (2) transparency in app development; and (3) functionality of the app interface. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The iOS App Store was systematically searched. Apps with descriptions indicating that they targeted the intended audience and included evidence-related terminology, at least one evidence-based stress management strategy, and behavior change components were downloaded and evaluated by two independent raters across the three domains of evidence-based content, transparency, and functionality. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 902 apps were identified based on 21 searches. Of these, 60 met study criteria and were downloaded and evaluated between April and June 2015. Twenty (33%) ultimately did not deliver an evidence-based strategy. Of the delivered strategies, the most common were mindfulness and meditation (73%) and diaphragmatic breathing (25%). On average, apps addressed half of the transparency criteria, and nearly all (85%) were acceptable across usability criteria. A total of 32 apps included both evidence-based content and exhibited no problems with usability or functionality; apps affiliated with a non-profit, research-engaged institution comprised 31% of these. CONCLUSIONS: This review evaluated 60 iOS apps for stress management across domains of evidence-based content, transparency, and functionality; these apps have the potential to effectively supplement medical care. Findings further indicate that a comprehensive, multi-domain approach can distinguish apps that use evidence-based strategies from those that do not.
Authors: Jasmohan S Bajaj; Michael Ellwood; Timothy Ainger; Thomas Burroughs; Andrew Fagan; Edith A Gavis; Douglas M Heuman; Michael Fuchs; Binu John; James B Wade Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Otis L Owens; Jenay M Beer; Ligia I Reyes; David G Gallerani; Amanda R Myhren-Bennett; Karen K McDonnell Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 4.773