Timothy B Plante1, Anna C O'Kelly2, Zane T Macfarlane3, Bruno Urrea4, Lawrence J Appel5, Edgar R Miller Iii5, Roger S Blumenthal6, Seth S Martin5,6. 1. Department of Medicine, Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 2. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Chemistry, Pomona College, Claremont, California, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 6. Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
Objective: To understand whether user reviews of Instant Blood Pressure (IBP), an inaccurate, unregulated BP-measuring app reflected IBP's inaccuracy, to understand drivers for high and low ratings, and to understand if disclaimers prevented medical use. Materials and Methods: All iTunes app reviews for IBP v1.2.3 were downloaded and assessed for themes by two reviewers. Summary statistics for themes were tabulated with their associated star ratings. Results: Common themes included perceived accuracy (42% of all reviews, star rating mean 4.8, median 5), inaccuracy (10%, 2.0, 1), and convenience (34%, 4.7, 5). Nine percent documented IBP use in medical conditions (4.6, 5), and 2% mentioned IBP's disclaimer (2.7, 3). Discussion: User reviews and ratings of a popular, inaccurate BP-measuring app were positive and uncommonly commented on its inaccuracy. Disclaimers attempting to prevent medical use of the app were ineffective. These findings support the need for more rigorous regulatory review of apps prior to their release.
Objective: To understand whether user reviews of Instant Blood Pressure (IBP), an inaccurate, unregulated BP-measuring app reflected IBP's inaccuracy, to understand drivers for high and low ratings, and to understand if disclaimers prevented medical use. Materials and Methods: All iTunes app reviews for IBP v1.2.3 were downloaded and assessed for themes by two reviewers. Summary statistics for themes were tabulated with their associated star ratings. Results: Common themes included perceived accuracy (42% of all reviews, star rating mean 4.8, median 5), inaccuracy (10%, 2.0, 1), and convenience (34%, 4.7, 5). Nine percent documented IBP use in medical conditions (4.6, 5), and 2% mentioned IBP's disclaimer (2.7, 3). Discussion: User reviews and ratings of a popular, inaccurate BP-measuring app were positive and uncommonly commented on its inaccuracy. Disclaimers attempting to prevent medical use of the app were ineffective. These findings support the need for more rigorous regulatory review of apps prior to their release.
Authors: Bettina B Hoeppner; Susanne S Hoeppner; Lourah Seaboyer; Melissa R Schick; Gwyneth W Y Wu; Brandon G Bergman; John F Kelly Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-06-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Karandeep Singh; Kaitlin Drouin; Lisa P Newmark; JaeHo Lee; Arild Faxvaag; Ronen Rozenblum; Erika A Pabo; Adam Landman; Elissa Klinger; David W Bates Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Timothy B Plante; Bruno Urrea; Zane T MacFarlane; Roger S Blumenthal; Edgar R Miller; Lawrence J Appel; Seth S Martin Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Michael Bauer; Tasha Glenn; John Geddes; Michael Gitlin; Paul Grof; Lars V Kessing; Scott Monteith; Maria Faurholt-Jepsen; Emanuel Severus; Peter C Whybrow Journal: Int J Bipolar Disord Date: 2020-01-10
Authors: Rizwana Biviji; Joshua R Vest; Brian E Dixon; Theresa Cullen; Christopher A Harle Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 4.773