Mobile applications in oncology: is it possible for patients and healthcare professionals to easily identify relevant tools?
Mobile applications in oncology: is it possible for patients and healthcare professionals to easily identify relevant tools?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/07853890.2016.1195010
复制
发表时间：
2016-01-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Vignot, Stephane
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brouard, Benoit;Bardo, Pascale;Vignot, Stephane
目的：移动应用程序代表有前途的工具，在慢性疾病的管理，无论是对患者和医疗保健专业人员，特别是在肿瘤学。在移动商店中提供的大量移动健康（mhealth）应用程序中，用户可能很难确定最相关的应用程序。本研究评估了与肿瘤相关的移动应用的商业模式和科学验证。方法：对两个主要市场进行了系统回顾。根据商店应用程序的描述，评估目的，科学验证和资金来源。根据目标受众（一般人群/患者/医疗保健专业人员）对结果进行分层。结果：539个与肿瘤学相关的应用程序被确定：46.8%用于医疗保健专业人员，31.5%用于普通人群，21.7%用于患者。由于只有36.5%的应用程序提到了明显的科学验证，因此注意到缺乏有关医疗保健专业人员参与开发过程的信息。大多数应用程序是免费的（72.2%），没有明确的行业支持（94.2%）。结论：有必要加强对肿瘤学中移动医疗应用的独立审查。经济模式可以受到质疑，资金来源也应该得到澄清。同时，患者和医疗保健专业人员应对应用程序的内容保持谨慎。对与肿瘤学相关的移动应用进行了系统回顾，发现缺乏科学验证和资金方面的信息。应该鼓励独立的科学审查和利益冲突的报告。用户和所有卫生专业人员都应该意识到，卫生应用程序，无论其内容质量如何，实际上都不采用这种方法。
Aim: Mobile applications represent promising tools in management of chronic diseases, both for patients and healthcare professionals, and especially in oncology. Among the large number of mobile health (mhealth) applications available in mobile stores, it could be difficult for users to identify the most relevant ones. This study evaluated the business model and the scientific validation for mobile applications related to oncology.Methods: A systematic review was performed over the two major marketplaces. Purpose, scientific validation, and source of funding were evaluated according to the description of applications in stores. Results were stratified according to targeted audience (general population/patients/healthcare professionals).Results: Five hundred and thirty-nine applications related to oncology were identified: 46.8% dedicated to healthcare professionals, 31.5% to general population, and 21.7% to patients. A lack of information about healthcare professionals' involvement in the development process was noted since only 36.5% of applications mentioned an obvious scientific validation. Most apps were free (72.2%) and without explicit support by industry (94.2%).Conclusions: There is a need to enforce independent review of mhealth applications in oncology. The economic model could be questioned and the source of funding should be clarified. Meanwhile, patients and healthcare professionals should remain cautious about applications' contents.Key messagesA systematic review was performed to describe the mobile applications related to oncology and it revealed a lack of information on scientific validation and funding.Independent scientific review and the reporting of conflicts of interest should be encouraged.Users, and all health professionals, should be aware that health applications, whatever the quality of their content, do not actually embrace such an approach.