Premature ejaculation in the era of mobile health application: A current analysis and evaluation of adherence to EAU guidelines

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

Introduction: Several mobile health applications (MHAs) have been developed to assist and improve the quality of life of patients affected by premature ejaculation, but the scientific quality and adherence to guidelines are not yet addressed. Materials and methods: On 25 May 2022, we conducted a search in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. We reviewed all mobile apps from Apple App Store and Google Play Store for premature ejaculation and evaluated their usage in screening, prevention, management, and adherence to EAU guidelines. Results: In total 9 MHA were reviewed. All MHAs are geared towards the patient and provide information about diagnoses and treatment of PE. The mean score were 2.87, 3.69, 2.77, 2.55, 2.86 for Engagement, Functionality, Aesthetics, Information, and Subjective quality respectively. MHAs reported low and medium adherence to EAU guidelines. Conclusions: MHAs provide different services in many medical fields, including male sexual dysfunction. Their development is constantly increasing, but the problems of scientific validation, content, and quality are not yet solved. Much future research is necessary to improve the quality of the apps and promote new user designed, and high-quality apps.

Related collections

Most cited references 32

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2027)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 19618 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Sexual and Reproductive Health—2021 Update: Male Sexual Dysfunction

Andrea Salonia, Carlo Bettocchi, Luca Boeri … (2021)

0 comments Cited 206 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Mobile Apps for Health Behavior Change in Physical Activity, Diet, Drug and Alcohol Use, and Mental Health: Systematic Review

Madison Milne-Ives, Ching Lam, Caroline De Cock … (2020)

Background With a growing focus on patient interaction with health management, mobile apps are increasingly used to deliver behavioral health interventions. The large variation in these mobile health apps—their target patient group, health behavior, and behavioral change strategies—has resulted in a large but incohesive body of literature. Objective This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of mobile apps in improving health behaviors and outcomes and to examine the inclusion and effectiveness of behavior change techniques (BCTs) in mobile health apps. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published between 2014 and 2019 that evaluated mobile apps for health behavior change. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria. Data were extracted and the risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Results A total of 52 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis—37 studies focused on physical activity, diet, or a combination of both, 11 on drug and alcohol use, and 4 on mental health. Participant perceptions were generally positive—only one app was rated as less helpful and satisfactory than the control—and the studies that measured engagement and usability found relatively high study completion rates (mean 83%; n=18, N=39) and ease-of-use ratings (3 significantly better than control, 9/15 rated >70%). However, there was little evidence of changed behavior or health outcomes. Conclusions There was no strong evidence in support of the effectiveness of mobile apps in improving health behaviors or outcomes because few studies found significant differences between the app and control groups. Further research is needed to identify the BCTs that are most effective at promoting behavior change. Improved reporting is necessary to accurately evaluate the mobile health app effectiveness and risk of bias.

0 comments Cited 129 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Title: Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia

Abbreviated Title: Arch Ital Urol Androl

Publisher: PAGEPress Publications

ISSN (Electronic): 2282-4197

ISSN (Print): 1124-3562

Publication date Created: September 26 2022

Publication date (Electronic): September 26 2022

Volume: 94

Issue: 3

Pages: 328-333

Article

DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2022.3.328

SO-VID: 33daabe7-d10f-4d5c-867e-85538011bf11

License:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.