Review
. 2013 Dec 23;15(12):e287. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2661. A lot of action, but not in the right direction: systematic review and content analysis of smartphone applications for the prevention, detection, and management of cancerAffiliations
AffiliationItem in Clipboard
Review
A lot of action, but not in the right direction: systematic review and content analysis of smartphone applications for the prevention, detection, and management of cancerJacqueline Lorene Bender et al. J Med Internet Res. 2013.
. 2013 Dec 23;15(12):e287. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2661. AffiliationItem in Clipboard
AbstractBackground: Mobile phones have become nearly ubiquitous, offering a promising means to deliver health interventions. However, little is known about smartphone applications (apps) for cancer.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to characterize the purpose and content of cancer-focused smartphone apps available for use by the general public and the evidence on their utility or effectiveness.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the official application stores for the four major smartphone platforms: iPhone, Android, Nokia, and BlackBerry. Apps were included in the review if they were focused on cancer and available for use by the general public. This was complemented by a systematic review of literature from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify evaluations of cancer-related smartphone apps.
Results: A total of 295 apps from the smartphone app stores met the inclusion criteria. The majority of apps targeted breast cancer (46.8%, 138/295) or cancer in general (28.5%, 84/295). The reported app purpose was predominantly to raise awareness about cancer (32.2%, 95/295) or to provide educational information about cancer (26.4%, 78/295), followed by apps to support fundraising efforts (12.9%, 38/295), assist in early detection (11.5%, 34/295), promote a charitable organization (10.2%, 30/295), support disease management (3.7%, 11/295), cancer prevention (2.0%, 6/295), or social support (1.0%, 3/295). The majority of the apps did not describe their organizational affiliation (64.1%, 189/295). Apps affiliated with non-profit organizations were more likely to be free of cost (χ(2) 1=16.3, P<.001) and have a fundraising or awareness purpose (χ(2) 2=13.3, P=.001). The review of the health literature yielded 594 articles, none of which reported an evaluation of a cancer-focused smartphone application.
Conclusions: There are hundreds of cancer-focused apps with the potential to enhance efforts to promote behavior change, to monitor a host of symptoms and physiological indicators of disease, and to provide real-time supportive interventions, conveniently and at low cost. However, there is a lack of evidence on their utility, effectiveness, and safety. Future efforts should focus on improving and consolidating the evidence base into a whitelist for public consumption.
Keywords: Internet; apps; cancer; mobile; software applications.
Conflict of interest statementConflicts of Interest: None declared.
FiguresFigure 1
Flow diagram.
Figure 1
Flow diagram.
Figure 1Flow diagram.
Figure 2
Distribution of cancer apps across…
Figure 2
Distribution of cancer apps across the four mobile markets.
Figure 2Distribution of cancer apps across the four mobile markets.
Figure 3
Number of apps by target…
Figure 3
Number of apps by target cancer type.
Figure 3Number of apps by target cancer type.
Figure 4
Percent distribution of apps in…
Figure 4
Percent distribution of apps in comparison to estimated new cases of cancer, by…
Figure 4Percent distribution of apps in comparison to estimated new cases of cancer, by gender, Canada 2013. Data on cancer incidence drawn from Figure 1.2 of Canadian Cancer Statistics by the Canadian Cancer Society (2013).
Similar articlesMarcano Belisario JS, Huckvale K, Greenfield G, Car J, Gunn LH. Marcano Belisario JS, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Nov 27;2013(11):CD010013. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010013.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 24282112 Free PMC article. Review.
Baxter C, Carroll JA, Keogh B, Vandelanotte C. Baxter C, et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Feb 3;8(2):e16741. doi: 10.2196/16741. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020. PMID: 32012102 Free PMC article.
Wallace LS, Dhingra LK. Wallace LS, et al. J Opioid Manag. 2014 Jan-Feb;10(1):63-8. doi: 10.5055/jom.2014.0193. J Opioid Manag. 2014. PMID: 24604571 Review.
Szinay D, Jones A, Chadborn T, Brown J, Naughton F. Szinay D, et al. J Med Internet Res. 2020 May 29;22(5):e17572. doi: 10.2196/17572. J Med Internet Res. 2020. PMID: 32348255 Free PMC article.
Zhao J, Freeman B, Li M. Zhao J, et al. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Oct 31;18(11):e287. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5692. J Med Internet Res. 2016. PMID: 27806926 Free PMC article. Review.
Coughlin SS, Hardy D, Caplan LS. Coughlin SS, et al. J Ga Public Health Assoc. 2016 Winter;5(3):228-232. J Ga Public Health Assoc. 2016. PMID: 27034994 Free PMC article.
Amor-García MÁ, Collado-Borrell R, Escudero-Vilaplana V, Melgarejo-Ortuño A, Herranz-Alonso A, Arranz Arija JÁ, Sanjurjo-Sáez M. Amor-García MÁ, et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jul 23;8(7):e17609. doi: 10.2196/17609. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020. PMID: 32706737 Free PMC article.
Zhu H, Chen X, Yang J, Wu Q, Zhu J, Chan SW. Zhu H, et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Sep 16;8(9):e18896. doi: 10.2196/18896. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020. PMID: 32936087 Free PMC article.
Wright A. Wright A. Mhealth. 2021 Oct 20;7:60. doi: 10.21037/mhealth-20-161. eCollection 2021. Mhealth. 2021. PMID: 34805391 Free PMC article.
Scholz S, Teetz L. Scholz S, et al. Digit Health. 2022 Jan 20;8:20552076221074127. doi: 10.1177/20552076221074127. eCollection 2022 Jan-Dec. Digit Health. 2022. PMID: 35096411 Free PMC article.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.3