PURPOSE: Smartphone technology has propelled the evolution of health-related mobile technology, referred to as mobile health (mHealth). With the rise of smartphone ownership and the growing popularity of health-related smartphone usage, mHealth offers potential benefits for both patients and health care providers. The objective of this review is to assess the current state of smartphone technology in urology. METHODS: A literature search of PubMed database was conducted to identify articles reporting on smartphone technology in urology. Publications were included if they focused on smartphone mHealth technology pertinent to the field of urology or included an evaluation of urological applications in digital stores. RESULTS: We identified 50 publications focused on the use of smartphones in urology. Studies were then grouped into the following categories: smartphones employing the built-in camera and light source, applications specific to prostate cancer, urolithiasis, pediatric urology, and as educational tools for urologists. In 23/50 (46%) studies, smartphone technology/intervention was compared to a control group or to standard of care. In this regard, smartphone technology did not demonstrate benefit over standard of care in 13 studies. In contrast, in 10 studies, smartphone interventions were proven beneficial over current practice. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone technology is constantly evolving and has the potential to improve urological care and education. Of concern to consumer and urologist alike is that these downloadable programs are limited due to the accuracy of their content, risk of confidentiality breach, and the lack of central regulation and professional involvement in their development.
PURPOSE: Smartphone technology has propelled the evolution of health-related mobile technology, referred to as mobile health (mHealth). With the rise of smartphone ownership and the growing popularity of health-related smartphone usage, mHealth offers potential benefits for both patients and health care providers. The objective of this review is to assess the current state of smartphone technology in urology. METHODS: A literature search of PubMed database was conducted to identify articles reporting on smartphone technology in urology. Publications were included if they focused on smartphone mHealth technology pertinent to the field of urology or included an evaluation of urological applications in digital stores. RESULTS: We identified 50 publications focused on the use of smartphones in urology. Studies were then grouped into the following categories: smartphones employing the built-in camera and light source, applications specific to prostate cancer, urolithiasis, pediatric urology, and as educational tools for urologists. In 23/50 (46%) studies, smartphone technology/intervention was compared to a control group or to standard of care. In this regard, smartphone technology did not demonstrate benefit over standard of care in 13 studies. In contrast, in 10 studies, smartphone interventions were proven beneficial over current practice. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone technology is constantly evolving and has the potential to improve urological care and education. Of concern to consumer and urologist alike is that these downloadable programs are limited due to the accuracy of their content, risk of confidentiality breach, and the lack of central regulation and professional involvement in their development.
Entities:
Keywords:
Applications; Mobile health; Pediatric urology; Prostate cancer; Smartphone; Urolithiasis
Authors: William Sohn; Samir Shreim; Renai Yoon; Victor B Huynh; Atreya Dash; Ralph Clayman; Hak J Lee Journal: J Endourol Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Ana I Barbosa; Poonam Gehlot; Kalpita Sidapra; Alexander D Edwards; Nuno M Reis Journal: Biosens Bioelectron Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 10.618
Authors: Kevin Gerard Keane; Nikita Rajiv Bhatt; Patrick Michael Collins; Robert Joseph Flynn; Rustom Pervez Manecksha Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2021-03
Authors: Aida Jaffar; Sherina Mohd Sidik; Chai Nien Foo; Noor Azimah Muhammad; Rosliza Abdul Manaf; Siti Irma Fadhilah Ismail; Nazhatussima Suhaili Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Stacey A Kenfield; Scott R Bauer; Elizabeth Y Wang; Benjamin N Breyer; Austin W Lee; Natalie Rios; Akinyemi Oni-Orisan; Michael A Steinman; Ida Sim Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2021-12-24