JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) prevalence continues to rise globally, increasing demand for scalable, consumer-centred models of care. Smartphone-based mobile health (mHealth) applications have emerged as potential adjunctive tools for chronic disease management; however, the consumer IBD app landscape and supporting evidence remain heterogeneous and incompletely characterised.

Objective:

To examine the Australasian consumer IBD mobile application market and review published evidence relating to app functionality, usability, patient-centred outcomes, and healthcare utilisation.

Methods:

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Searches of EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL were performed in June 2025 for studies describing consumer-facing mobile applications designed for adjunctive IBD care. Concurrent systematic searches of the Australian and New Zealand Apple App Store and Google Play Store were performed using predefined IBD-related keywords. Data extracted included app characteristics, functionalities, study design, patient outcomes, and healthcare utilisation outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the WHO mHealth Evidence Reporting and Assessment (mERA) framework.

Results:

Thirty-one studies comprising 22 discrete mobile applications met inclusion criteria. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) monitoring was the only feature present across all published apps, with validated disease activity indices incorporated in 12 applications. Educational resources and medication management tools were the next most common functionalities. App usability and acceptability were consistently high, with most studies reporting >90% positive user feedback, and several studies demonstrating sustained user interaction with symptom, dietary, and medication tracking features. However, longitudinal adherence to questionnaire completion and app engagement declined over time in multiple studies. Clinical outcomes were mixed. Remote monitoring enabled proactive identification of disease activity and treatment escalation in several studies. Two studies demonstrated reduced outpatient appointment requirements through combined PRO and faecal calprotectin monitoring, while one study reported reduced emergency department visits and hospitalisations following app implementation. Conversely, randomised and controlled studies generally demonstrated non-inferior rather than superior disease control outcomes compared with standard care, with inconsistent effects on quality of life, flare rates, and healthcare utilisation. Only five applications explicitly supported integration with electronic medical records or existing clinical workflows. Consumer app store review identified 16 publicly available IBD-specific applications. Gastrointestinal symptom tracking and dietary monitoring were the most common functionalities, though overall functionality remained fragmented, with most apps incorporating two or fewer major feature categories. Only four applications explicitly described healthcare professional involvement in app development or content design.

Conclusions:

The current IBD mobile app ecosystem is large but fragmented, with variable functionality, limited interoperability, and sparse high-quality evidence supporting clinical effectiveness. Existing studies demonstrate promising feasibility and patient engagement, though sustained utilisation and demonstrable clinical impact remain inconsistent. Future development should prioritise stakeholder co-design, standardised evaluation frameworks, interoperability with healthcare systems, and integration into routine clinical workflows to support scalable and sustainable digital models of IBD care.