JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Urticaria is a prevalent disease characterized by the appearance of wheals and/or angioedema. The transient, frequently intermittent wheals cause severe pruritus and have a significant impact on the lives of those affected. Effective disease management is the fundamental basis for successful treatment and a good quality of life. Mobile health applications (MHAs) have the potential to support patient care and can play an important role in this regard.

Objective:

This investigation sought to identify publicly accessible MHAs for patients diagnosed with chronic urticaria and assess their quality by evaluating user feedback from both patients and medical professionals.

Methods:

Two reviewers conducted a comprehensive search of the Apple App Store, Google Play Store, and the broader internet for MHAs for CSU. Apps had to support the German or English language, and focus on patient care. A single application was identified that satisfied the established inclusion criteria. The app was evaluated by 23 physicians and 16 patients using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), the Usability Multi-Attribute Scale (uMARS), the German Mobile App Usability Questionnaire (G-MAUQ), and technology affinity tools (ATI and MDPQ-16).

Results:

This study identified a single patient-centered application for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU)—the CRUSE Control app—that met the inclusion criteria, from an initial selection of 15 proposed apps. The initial pool included several non-medical, non-CSU-specific, and non-patient-centered apps. The quality of the CRUSE Control app was rated similarly by both patients and physicians, with a MARS score of 4.03 (SD 0.45) from physicians and a uMARS score of 4.06 (SD 0.40) from patients (p = 0.826). The only subcategory where patients rated the app significantly higher than physicians was functionality, with patients giving a score of 4.47 (SD 0.55) compared to 3.75 (SD 0.41) from physicians (p = 0.043). Usability was assessed using the G-MAUQ, and no significant difference was found between the ratings of physicians (5.85, SD 0.71) and patients (5.76, SD 0.41) for the CRUSE Control app (p = 0.638). Both physicians and CSU patients demonstrated similar overall affinity for technology, as indicated by the ATI, with physicians scoring 3.50 (SD 0.66) and patients scoring 4.00 (SD 0.88) (p = 0.050). MDPQ-16, which specifically measures affinity for technology use in mobile devices, yielded comparable results: physicians scored 4.81 (SD 0.26), while patients scored 4.74 (SD 0.45) (p = 0.601).

Conclusions:

There are few apps available for patients with CSU. The CRUSE Control app effectively monitors disease activity in CSU, receiving positive feedback from both patients and physicians. It supports self-management, disease control, and reduces physician workload, warranting further long-term testing and refinement.