Patients' and Nephrologists' Evaluation of Patient-Facing Smartphone Apps for CKD
Patients' and Nephrologists' Evaluation of Patient-Facing Smartphone Apps for CKD
复制标题
DOI：
10.2215/cjn.10370818
复制
发表时间：
2019-04-05
影响因子：
9.8
通讯作者：
Wright-Nunes, Julie
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Singh, Karandeep;Diamantidis, Clarissa J.;Wright-Nunes, Julie
背景和目标 CKD 管理的许多方面在很大程度上依赖于患者的自我护理，包括药物和饮食依从性、血压的自我监测和日常身体活动。越来越多的证据表明，整合基于智能手机的应用程序可以更广泛地支持 CKD 和慢性疾病的自我护理。 设计、设置、参与者和测量 我们使用以下四个短语在美国 Apple App Store (iOS) 和 Google Play Store (Android) 中进行搜索，确定了针对 CKD 患者的应用程序：“kidneydisease”、“renal”、“diaanalysis”和“kidney grant”。我们考虑了每个应用程序商店中每个搜索词的前 50 个应用程序。我们采用了先前描述的移动健康应用程序评估框架，以考虑肾脏疾病特定的内容领域，并评估应用程序的患者参与类型、质量、可用性和安全性。参与度和质量由患者和肾病专家评估，可用性由患者评估，安全性由肾病专家评估。总体而言，两名 CKD 患者和三名肾病专家进行了评估。我们检查了患者、肾病专家和消费者对应用程序质量评分之间的成对相关性。结果我们的搜索策略确定了 Android 上的 174 个独特应用程序和 iOS 上的 165 个独特应用程序。排除与肾脏疾病无关、不面向患者或最后一次更新在 2014 年之前的应用程序后，剩下 12 个仅限 Android 的应用程序、11 个仅限 iOS 的应用程序和 5 个双平台应用程序。通过净启动子评分评估的患者和肾病专家应用质量评级不相关（r=0.36；P=0.06）。应用程序商店上的消费者评分与患者对应用程序质量的评分不相关（r=0.34；P=0.18）。 结论 只有一小部分 CKD 应用程序得到了患者和肾病专家的高度评价。患者对应用程序质量的印象与消费者应用程序评级或肾病专家的印象没有直接关系。
Background and objectives Many aspects of CKD management rely heavily on patient self-care, including medication and dietary adherence, self-monitoring of BP, and daily physical activity. Growing evidence suggests that incorporating smartphone-based applications can support self-care in CKD and chronic disease more generally.Design, setting, participants, & measurements We identified applications targeting patients with CKD by conducting a search of the US Apple App Store (iOS) and Google Play Store (Android) using the following four phrases: "kidneydisease,""renal,""dialysis," and "kidney transplant." We considered the first 50 applications for each search term on each application store. We adapted a previously described framework for assessment of mobile health applications to account for kidney disease-specific content areas and evaluated applications on their types of patient engagement, quality, usability, and safety. Engagement and quality were assessed by both a patient and a nephrologist, usability was assessed by a patient, and safety was assessed by a nephrologist. Overall, two patients with CKD and three nephrologists performed the evaluations. We examined pairwise correlations between patient, nephrologist, and consumer ratings of application quality.Results Our search strategy identified 174 unique applications on Android and 165 unique applications on iOS. After excluding applications that were not related to kidney disease, were not patient facing, or were last updated before 2014, 12 Android-only applications, 11 iOS-only applications, and five dual-platform applications remained. Patient and nephrologist application quality ratings, assessed by the net promoter score, were not correlated (r=0.36; P=0.06). Consumer ratings on the application stores did not correlate with patient ratings of application quality (r=0.34; P=0.18).Conclusions Only a small subset of CKD applications was highly rated by both patients and nephrologists. Patients' impressions of application quality are not directly linked to consumer application ratings or nephrologist impressions.