4.6 Review

Mobile Health Apps for Self-Management of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Systematic Literature Review

期刊

JMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH
卷 7, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

JMIR PUBLICATIONS, INC
DOI: 10.2196/14730

关键词

mobile health; self-management; arthritis; telemedicine; musculoskeletal diseases

资金

  1. EULAR [CLI102]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although the increasing availability of mobile health (mHealth) apps may enable people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) to better self-manage their health, there is a general lack of evidence on ways to ensure appropriate development and evaluation of apps. Objective: This study aimed to obtain an overview on existing mHealth apps for self-management in patients with RMDs, focusing on content and development methods. Methods: A search was performed up to December 2017 across 5 databases. For each publication relevant to an app for RMDs, information on the disease, purpose, content, and development strategies was extracted and qualitatively assessed. Results: Of 562 abstracts, 32 were included in the analysis. Of these 32 abstracts, 11 (34%) referred to an app linked to a connected device. Most of the apps targeted rheumatoid arthritis (11/32, 34%). The top 3 aspects addressed by the apps were pain (23/32, 71%), fatigue (15/32, 47%), and physical activity (15/32, 47%). The development process of the apps was described in 84% (27/32) of the articles and was of low to moderate quality in most of the cases. Despite most of the articles having been published within the past 2 years, only 5 apps were still commercially available at the time of our search. Moreover, only very few studies showed improvement of RMD outcome measures. Conclusions: The development process of most apps was of low or moderate quality in many studies. Owing to the increasing RMD patients' willingness to use mHealth apps for self-management, optimal standards and quality assurance of new apps are mandatory.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据