Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Previously submitted to: JMIR mHealth and uHealth (no longer under consideration since Sep 03, 2021)

Date Submitted: Mar 18, 2020
Open Peer Review Period: Mar 18, 2020 - May 13, 2020
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint

Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).

Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.

Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).

Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.

Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.

Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Recommendations for a mobile health research platform from a developer's perspective: Survey Study

  • Dario Salvi; 
  • Carmelo Velardo; 
  • Arvin Rishi Goburdhun; 
  • Lionel Tarassenko

ABSTRACT

Background:

The use of mobile phone apps and connected wearable devices offers a great opportunity for health research. In order make healthcare data accessible across organisations, physicians and patients, recent platforms like Apple HealthKit, Google Fit or Samsung Health allow to securely store and share health data among smartphone apps with the consent of the user. These mobile health records can be combined with software platforms, like ResearchKit and ResearchStack to simplify the development of research apps by providing ready-made common use cases while being compliant to regulations in data protection and health research. Even though a plethora of such platforms exist, none of them can be considered as a widely established tool yet.

Objective:

To provide recommendations for new platforms through the analysis of the limitations posed by existing platforms and by identifying common needs and established practices in mHealth development.

Methods:

We first analyse the state of the art of mobile-health development in research settings, including existing tools and frameworks to support it. To complement the scant literature, we disseminated a survey among mobile-health researchers and developers to understand best practices, what type of tools are used and which would be desirable.

Results:

Related to current practices and unmet needs in mHealth development we identify the following themes: a) costs and resources, b) usability and context awareness, c) middleware and software architectures, d) multi-platform support, e) mobile connectivity, f) reliability and testing, g) data protection and regulatory compliance and h) interoperability. In relation to existing platforms we identified these common shortcomings: 1) poor regulatory compliance, 2) lack of documentation, 3) low maturity, 4) poor usability (from the developer’s perspective) and intuitiveness. Our survey received 28 very varied responses, which identify a core of concerns shared for most of the reported projects and not entirely met by the current offer of development platforms. Based on these results, we provide recommendations for future mobile-health platforms, particularly focusing on multi-operating system support, integration with existing health records, regulatory compliance, involvement of stakeholders, modularity, extensibility and overall quality of the code base.

Conclusions:

Our recommendations intend to guide the development of a platform to be used as a common tool for future research in mobile-health.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Salvi D, Velardo C, Goburdhun AR, Tarassenko L

Recommendations for a mobile health research platform from a developer's perspective: Survey Study

JMIR Preprints. 18/03/2020:18786

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.18786

URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/18786

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.