Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Research Protocols
Date Submitted: Aug 24, 2021
Date Accepted: Nov 10, 2021
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited.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.
The Functionality, Quality and Consistency with International Guidelines of Asthma Mobile Health Applications: Protocol for a Systematic Review.
ABSTRACT
Background:
Asthma is a chronic respiratory disorder which requires long-term pharmacotherapy and patient empowerment to manage their condition and recognise and respond to asthma exacerbations. Mobile health applications (mHealth apps) represent a potential medium through which patients could improve the ability to self-manage their asthma. Few studies have conducted a systematic evaluation of asthma mobile applications for the quality and functionality of the apps using a validated tool. None of these reviews have systematically assessed these applications for their content compared to available international best practice guidelines.
Objective:
The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review of adult-targeted asthma mobile health applications. As part of this review the potential for an mHealth app to improve asthma self-management and the overall quality of the application will be evaluated, using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) framework, and the quality of the information within an app, using the current Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines as a reference, will be assessed.
Methods:
A methodological stepwise approach was taken in creating this review. First the most recent GINA guidelines were independently reviewed by two authors to identify key recommendations that could feasibly be incorporated into a mHealth app. A previously developed asthma assessment framework was identified and modified to suit our research and ensure all of these identified recommendations were included. Two popular App stores were then reviewed to identify potential mHealth Apps. These Apps were screened based on pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Suitable applications were then evaluated. Technical information was obtained from publicly available information. The next step was to perform an application quality assessment using the validated MARS framework to objectively determine the quality of the application. Application functionality was then assessed using the IMS Institute for Health Informatics Functionality Scoring system. Finally, the mHealth applications will be assessed using a checklist that we have developed.
Results:
To date, funding has been received for the project from the Respiratory Department at Northern Health, Victoria. Three reviewers have been recruited to systematically evaluate the applications. Results for this study are expected by the end of this year.
Conclusions:
This review represents the first that we know of that will examine all mobile health applications available in Australia targeted to adult asthmatics for their functionality, quality and consistency with international best practice guidelines. Though the review will only be conducted on mHealth Apps available in Australia, many applications are available internationally and thus should be largely generalisable to other English-speaking regions and users. The results of this review will help to fill gaps in the literature and assist clinicians in providing evidence-based advice to adult patients wishing to use mHealth apps as part of their asthma self-management. Clinical Trial: PROSPERO 269894
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© 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.