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?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Date Submitted: Feb 25, 2019
Open Peer Review Period: Feb 28, 2019 - Mar 28, 2019
Date Accepted: May 27, 2019
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Patients’ Perceptions of mHealth Apps: Meta-Ethnographic Review of Qualitative Studies

Vo V, Auroy L, Sarradon-Eck A

Patients’ Perceptions of mHealth Apps: Meta-Ethnographic Review of Qualitative Studies

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019;7(7):e13817

DOI: 10.2196/13817

PMID: 31293246

PMCID: 6652126

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited.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.

Patients’ Perceptions of mHealth Apps: Meta-Ethnographic Review of Qualitative Studies

  • VanAnh Vo; 
  • Lola Auroy; 
  • Aline Sarradon-Eck

Background:

Mobile phones and tablets are being increasingly integrated into the daily lives of many people worldwide. Mobile health (mHealth) apps have promising possibilities for optimizing health systems, improving care and health, and reducing health disparities. However, health care apps often seem to be underused after being downloaded.

Objective:

The aim of this paper is to reach a better understanding of people’s perceptions, beliefs, and experience of mHealth apps as well as to determine how highly they appreciate these tools.

Methods:

A systematic review was carried out on qualitative studies published in English, on patients’ perception of mHealth apps between January 2013 and June 2018. Data extracted from these articles were synthesized using a meta-ethnographic approach and an interpretative method.

Results:

A total of 356 articles were selected for screening, and 43 of them met the inclusion criteria. Most of the articles included populations inhabiting developed countries and were published during the last 2 years, and most of the apps on which they focused were designed to help patients with chronic diseases. In this review, we present the strengths and weaknesses of using mHealth apps from the patients’ point of view. The strengths can be categorized into two main aspects: engaging patients in their own health care and increasing patient empowerment. The weaknesses pointed out by the participants focus on four main topics: trustworthiness, appropriateness, personalization, and accessibility of these tools.

Conclusions:

Although many of the patients included in the studies reviewed considered mHealth apps as a useful complementary tool, some major problems arise in their optimal use, including the need for more closely tailored designs, the cost of these apps, the validity of the information delivered, and security and privacy issues. Many of these issues could be resolved with more support from health providers. In addition, it would be worth developing standards to ensure that these apps provide patients accurate evidence-based information.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Vo V, Auroy L, Sarradon-Eck A

Patients’ Perceptions of mHealth Apps: Meta-Ethnographic Review of Qualitative Studies

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019;7(7):e13817

DOI: 10.2196/13817

PMID: 31293246

PMCID: 6652126

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.