Cathleen Böhme1, Marc Baron von Osthoff1, Katrin Frey2, Jutta Hübner3. 1. Klinik für Innere Medizin II, Hämatologie und Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany. 2. Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Kliniken des Main Taunus Kreises GmbH Bad Soden, Bad Soden am Taunus, Germany. 3. Klinik für Innere Medizin II, Hämatologie und Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany. jutta.huebner@med.uni-jena.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Medical apps are gaining importance rapidly. Also in the field of cancer care, apps are offered. Yet, so far little is known with respect to their quality. METHODS: In a pilot phase we developed a rating tool based on formal and content-related criteria for the assessment of cancer apps. We used this instrument on cancer apps available in the App Store (iOS) concerning breast, prostate and colorectal cancer. The results were stratified according to target group, content and advertising. RESULTS: We assessed 41 mobile cancer apps. Six apps (14.63%) scored very high, fifteen apps (36.59%) high, seventeen apps (41.46%) were deficient, and three apps (7.32%) were insufficient. The largest group of apps represents those apps with the "deficient" rating. The very good to good apps had reliable sources, a concrete intent/ purpose in their app description, and a strict distinction of scientific content and advertisement. Apps with the predicates "deficient" or "insufficient" had particularly poor ratings, e.g. in the subscales "information on sources" and "data protection". CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the tested apps were deficient or insufficient. In order to improve safety of patients using apps, some regulation seems mandatory. Putting apps under the legislation for medical products might be one way to better regulate and control quality. Second, efforts should focus on the development of checklists that make it easier for patients to search for suitable cancer apps.
PURPOSE: Medical apps are gaining importance rapidly. Also in the field of cancer care, apps are offered. Yet, so far little is known with respect to their quality. METHODS: In a pilot phase we developed a rating tool based on formal and content-related criteria for the assessment of cancerapps. We used this instrument on cancerapps available in the App Store (iOS) concerning breast, prostate and colorectal cancer. The results were stratified according to target group, content and advertising. RESULTS: We assessed 41 mobile cancerapps. Six apps (14.63%) scored very high, fifteen apps (36.59%) high, seventeen apps (41.46%) were deficient, and three apps (7.32%) were insufficient. The largest group of apps represents those apps with the "deficient" rating. The very good to good apps had reliable sources, a concrete intent/ purpose in their app description, and a strict distinction of scientific content and advertisement. Apps with the predicates "deficient" or "insufficient" had particularly poor ratings, e.g. in the subscales "information on sources" and "data protection". CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the tested apps were deficient or insufficient. In order to improve safety of patients using apps, some regulation seems mandatory. Putting apps under the legislation for medical products might be one way to better regulate and control quality. Second, efforts should focus on the development of checklists that make it easier for patients to search for suitable cancerapps.
Entities:
Keywords:
Application; Cancer; Mobile apps; Oncology; Rating tool
Authors: Nuhamin Gebrewold Petros; Gergo Hadlaczky; Sara Carletto; Sergio Gonzalez Martinez; Luca Ostacoli; Manuel Ottaviano; Björn Meyer; Enzo Pasquale Scilingo; Vladimir Carli Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-06-08
Authors: Deborah H Charbonneau; Shonee Hightower; Anne Katz; Ke Zhang; Judith Abrams; Nicole Senft; Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; Elisabeth Heath; Tara Eaton; Hayley S Thompson Journal: Digit Health Date: 2020-02-11
Authors: Nico Schneider; Anna Bäcker; Katja Brenk-Franz; Christian Keinki; Jutta Hübner; Florian Brandt; Geraldine von der Winkel; Lutz Hager; Bernhard Strauss; Uwe Altmann Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 4.615