Characterization of prostate cancer information available on smartphones.

Abstract

e15102 Background: When seeking information regarding prostate cancer, patients are often turning to Smartphones. We decided to look at the “top applications” (apps) on the iTunes store to determine the quality of information provided. Methods: In November 2011 on an iPhone the search “Prostate Cancer” was entered. The first page of apps was downloaded and studied (18 in total). They were categorized into apps written at a provider level and apps written for a patient level. The patient apps were then broken into patient support, cancer detection, disease monitoring, advertisements, and patient knowledge. The quality of paid apps was also looked at. Results: Of the 18 apps, two were unrelated to prostate cancer. Of the remaining 16, six were provider apps. Of these six, two were apps for major oncology journals, three were staging guidelines, and one was for a general oncology reference guide. Of the patient directed apps, patient information (general prostate cancer information) apps were four, two were apps to provide support, one was devoted to disease detection which included discussions on prostate specific antigen testing, one for monitoring disease, and one was an advertisement for a radiation technique. One app, once downloaded, required additional payment and personal information prior to giving the promised information. This application was not pursued. Paid apps accounted for eight apps. Two were geared toward providers. Both were prostate cancer staging guidelines. The patient directed paid apps included two apps which provided medically appropriate, level one evidence based information. Two provided information that wasn’t based on accepted medical therapy, including diet advice to prevent cancer and “alternative therapies” including reflexology, roots, and hypnosis as therapies. All free apps that were devoted to prostate cancer were based on level one evidence. Two additional paid apps were unrelated to prostate cancer. Conclusions: The majority of applications available over the iTunes store provide solid evidence and may be a valuable resource to patients and providers. Only the patient directed paid apps provided information that can be deemed questionable.