Health App Use Among US Mobile Phone Owners: A National Survey

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Mobile phone health apps may now seem to be ubiquitous, yet much remains unknown with regard to their usage. Information is limited with regard to important metrics, including the percentage of the population that uses health apps, reasons for adoption/nonadoption, and reasons for noncontinuance of use.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to examine health app use among mobile phone owners in the United States.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1604 mobile phone users throughout the United States. The 36-item survey assessed sociodemographic characteristics, history of and reasons for health app use/nonuse, perceived effectiveness of health apps, reasons for stopping use, and general health status.

Results

A little over half (934/1604, 58.23%) of mobile phone users had downloaded a health-related mobile app. Fitness and nutrition were the most common categories of health apps used, with most respondents using them at least daily. Common reasons for not having downloaded apps were lack of interest, cost, and concern about apps collecting their data. Individuals more likely to use health apps tended to be younger, have higher incomes, be more educated, be Latino/Hispanic, and have a body mass index (BMI) in the obese range (all P<.05). Cost was a significant concern among respondents, with a large proportion indicating that they would not pay anything for a health app. Interestingly, among those who had downloaded health apps, trust in their accuracy and data safety was quite high, and most felt that the apps had improved their health. About half of the respondents (427/934, 45.7%) had stopped using some health apps, primarily due to high data entry burden, loss of interest, and hidden costs.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that while many individuals use health apps, a substantial proportion of the population does not, and that even among those who use health apps, many stop using them. These data suggest that app developers need to better address consumer concerns, such as cost and high data entry burden, and that clinical trials are necessary to test the efficacy of health apps to broaden their appeal and adoption.

Related collections

Most cited references 20

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Mobile medical and health apps: state of the art, concerns, regulatory control and certification

Maged N Kamel Boulos, Ann C. Brewer, Chante Karimkhani … (2014)

This paper examines the state of the art in mobile clinical and health-related apps. A 2012 estimate puts the number of health-related apps at no fewer than 40,000, as healthcare professionals and consumers continue to express concerns about the quality of many apps, calling for some form of app regulatory control or certification to be put in place. We describe the range of apps on offer as of 2013, and then present a brief survey of evaluation studies of medical and health-related apps that have been conducted to date, covering a range of clinical disciplines and topics. Our survey includes studies that highlighted risks, negative issues and worrying deficiencies in existing apps. We discuss the concept of ‘apps as a medical device’ and the relevant regulatory controls that apply in USA and Europe, offering examples of apps that have been formally approved using these mechanisms. We describe the online Health Apps Library run by the National Health Service in England and the calls for a vetted medical and health app store. We discuss the ingredients for successful apps beyond the rather narrow definition of ‘apps as a medical device’. These ingredients cover app content quality, usability, the need to match apps to consumers’ general and health literacy levels, device connectivity standards (for apps that connect to glucometers, blood pressure monitors, etc.), as well as app security and user privacy. ‘Happtique Health App Certification Program’ (HACP), a voluntary app certification scheme, successfully captures most of these desiderata, but is solely focused on apps targeting the US market. HACP, while very welcome, is in ways reminiscent of the early days of the Web, when many “similar” quality benchmarking tools and codes of conduct for information publishers were proposed to appraise and rate online medical and health information. It is probably impossible to rate and police every app on offer today, much like in those early days of the Web, when people quickly realised the same regarding informational Web pages. The best first line of defence was, is, and will always be to educate consumers regarding the potentially harmful content of (some) apps.

0 comments Cited 192 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Mobile Applications for Diabetics: A Systematic Review and Expert-Based Usability Evaluation Considering the Special Requirements of Diabetes Patients Age 50 Years or Older

Madlen Arnhold, Mandy Quade, Wilhelm Kirch (2014)

Background A multitude of mhealth (mobile health) apps have been developed in recent years to support effective self-management of patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 or 2. Objective We carried out a systematic review of all currently available diabetes apps for the operating systems iOS and Android. We considered the number of newly released diabetes apps, range of functions, target user groups, languages, acquisition costs, user ratings, available interfaces, and the connection between acquisition costs and user ratings. Additionally, we examined whether the available applications serve the special needs of diabetes patients aged 50 or older by performing an expert-based usability evaluation. Methods We identified relevant keywords, comparative categories, and their specifications. Subsequently, we performed the app review based on the information given in the Google Play Store, the Apple App Store, and the apps themselves. In addition, we carried out an expert-based usability evaluation based on a representative 10% sample of diabetes apps. Results In total, we analyzed 656 apps finding that 355 (54.1%) offered just one function and 348 (53.0%) provided a documentation function. The dominating app language was English (85.4%, 560/656), patients represented the main user group (96.0%, 630/656), and the analysis of the costs revealed a trend toward free apps (53.7%, 352/656). The median price of paid apps was €1.90. The average user rating was 3.6 stars (maximum 5). Our analyses indicated no clear differences in the user rating between free and paid apps. Only 30 (4.6%) of the 656 available diabetes apps offered an interface to a measurement device. We evaluated 66 apps within the usability evaluation. On average, apps were rated best regarding the criterion “comprehensibility” (4.0 out of 5.0), while showing a lack of “fault tolerance” (2.8 out of 5.0). Of the 66 apps, 48 (72.7%) offered the ability to read the screen content aloud. The number of functions was significantly negative correlated with usability. The presence of documentation and analysis functions reduced the usability score significantly by 0.36 and 0.21 points. Conclusions A vast number of diabetes apps already exist, but the majority offer similar functionalities and combine only one to two functions in one app. Patients and physicians alike should be involved in the app development process to a greater extent. We expect that the data transmission of health parameters to physicians will gain more importance in future applications. The usability of diabetes apps for patients aged 50 or older was moderate to good. But this result applied mainly to apps offering a small range of functions. Multifunctional apps performed considerably worse in terms of usability. Moreover, the presence of a documentation or analysis function resulted in significantly lower usability scores. The operability of accessibility features for diabetes apps was quite limited, except for the feature “screen reader”.

0 comments Cited 154 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Public Health Guidelines for Physical Activity: Is There an App for That? A Review of Android and Apple App Stores

Emily Knight, Melanie Stuckey, Harry Prapavessis … (2015)

Background Physical activity participation is an important behavior for modifying lifestyle-related disease risk. Mobile health apps for chronic disease management and prevention are being developed at a rapid rate. However, it is unclear whether these apps are evidence-based. Current public health recommendations for physical activity participation for adults highlight the importance of engaging in 150 minutes weekly of purposeful exercise, and muscle strengthening activities on at least 2 days of the week. Objective The aims of the present review were to (1) identify available evidence-based physical activity apps, and (2) identify technological features that could be leveraged to improve health outcomes. Methods iTunes and Google Play mobile app stores were searched using keyword and category searching during a single day (February 18, 2014) for physical activity apps available in English. The description pages of eligible apps were reviewed by 4 independent reviewers for evidence-based content, technological, and descriptive features. An a priori subset of apps was downloaded for further review (n=6 affiliated with a non-commercial agency; n=10 top rated; n=10 random selection), and developers were contacted for information regarding evidence-informed content. Results The initial search yielded 2400 apps, of which 379 apps (n=206 iTunes; n=173 Google Play) were eligible. Primary results demonstrated no apps (n=0) adhering to evidence-based guidelines for aerobic physical activity, and 7 out of 379 implementing evidence-based guidelines for resistance training physical activity. Technological features of apps included social networking (n=207), pairing with a peripheral health device (n=61), and measuring additional health parameters (n=139). Secondary results revealed 1 app that referenced physical activity guidelines (150 minutes/weekly of exercise), and demonstrated that apps were based on various physical activity reports (n=4) or personal expertise (n=2). Conclusions The present study demonstrated a shortage of evidence-based physical activity apps. This gap underscores the need for development of evidence-informed mobile apps. Results highlight the opportunity to develop evidence-informed mobile apps that can be used clinically to enhance health outcomes.

0 comments Cited 50 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Paul Krebs:

New York University School of MedicineDepartment of Population Health227 East 30th Street, 7th FloorNew York, NY, 10016United States1 646 501 26371 646 501 2637Paul.Krebs@nyumc.org

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3380-1763

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

Journal ID (publisher-id): JMU

Title: JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc. (Toronto, Canada )

ISSN (Electronic): 2291-5222

Publication date Collection: Oct-Dec 2015

Publication date (Electronic): 04 November 2015

Volume: 3

Issue: 4

Electronic Location Identifier: e101

Affiliations

[1] ¹New York University School of Medicine Department of Population Health New York, NYUnited States

[2] ²The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New York Harbor Healthcare System New York, NYUnited States

[3] ³College of Global Public Health New York University New York, NYUnited States

[4] ⁴Population Center New York University New York, NYUnited States

[5] ⁵Center for Data Science New York University New York, NYUnited States

Author notes

Corresponding Author: Paul Krebs Paul.Krebs@ 123456nyumc.org

Author information

Paul Krebs http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3380-1763

Dustin T Duncan http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8586-8711

Article

Publisher ID: v3i4e101

DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.4924

PMC ID: 4704953

PubMed ID: 26537656

SO-VID: 2ae00194-e715-4ced-bc1d-a23559ae5bed

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mhealth and uhealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

History

Date received : 10 July 2015

Date revision requested : 5 August 2015

Date revision received : 4 September 2015

Date accepted : 22 September 2015

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 468

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 185

See all reference authors

Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
- celebrating 25 years of open access