Kathryn L Shaia1, Sara Farag1, Kathy Chyjek1, Jaime Knopman2, Katherine T Chen1. 1. 1 Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai , New York, New York. 2. 2 Reproductive Associates of New York, LLP , New York, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and rate reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) mobile applications (apps) targeted toward REI providers. DESIGN: A list of REI apps was found in both the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores using the following seven MeSH terms: reproductive endocrinology, REI, infertility, fertility, In Vitro Fertilization, IVF, and embryology. Patient-centered apps were excluded. The remaining apps were then evaluated for accuracy using reliable references. SETTING: Mobile technology. PATIENTS/ INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accurate apps were evaluated for comprehensiveness (the extent of the ability to aid in clinical decision-making) and rated with objective and subjective components using the APPLICATIONS scoring system. RESULTS: Using the seven REI-related MeSH terms, 985 apps and 1,194 apps were identified in the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores, respectively. Of these unique apps, only 20 remained after excluding patient-centered apps. Upon further review for applicability to REI specifically and content accuracy, only seven apps remained. These seven apps were then rated using the APPLICATIONS scoring system. CONCLUSION: Only 0.32% of 2,179 apps reviewed for this study were useful to REI providers. There is potential for further mobile resource development in the area of REI, given the limited number and varying comprehensiveness and quality of available apps.
OBJECTIVE: To identify and rate reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) mobile applications (apps) targeted toward REI providers. DESIGN: A list of REI apps was found in both the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores using the following seven MeSH terms: reproductive endocrinology, REI, infertility, fertility, In Vitro Fertilization, IVF, and embryology. Patient-centered apps were excluded. The remaining apps were then evaluated for accuracy using reliable references. SETTING: Mobile technology. PATIENTS/ INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accurate apps were evaluated for comprehensiveness (the extent of the ability to aid in clinical decision-making) and rated with objective and subjective components using the APPLICATIONS scoring system. RESULTS: Using the seven REI-related MeSH terms, 985 apps and 1,194 apps were identified in the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores, respectively. Of these unique apps, only 20 remained after excluding patient-centered apps. Upon further review for applicability to REI specifically and content accuracy, only seven apps remained. These seven apps were then rated using the APPLICATIONS scoring system. CONCLUSION: Only 0.32% of 2,179 apps reviewed for this study were useful to REI providers. There is potential for further mobile resource development in the area of REI, given the limited number and varying comprehensiveness and quality of available apps.
Entities:
Keywords:
mobile applications; mobile health; mobile phone
Authors: Martin Hensher; Paul Cooper; Sithara Wanni Arachchige Dona; Mary Rose Angeles; Dieu Nguyen; Natalie Heynsbergh; Mary Lou Chatterton; Anna Peeters Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497