Mobile health applications in oncology.

Abstract

e14115 Background: Over 325,000 mobile health (mhealth) applications (apps) have been developed. There has been a substantial increase in mhealth investment, with over $8.1 billion invested in digital health startups in 2018. While apps have been studied within clinical oncology, we are aware of no comprehensive evaluation of the commercial footprint of oncology-specific apps. We sought to describe the state of oncology-specific apps and highlight notable areas of development. Methods: We conducted a systemic search for oncology apps in the Apple iOS and Google Play app stores in January 2020. Search terms included “cancer,” “oncology,” “radiotherapy,” and “chemotherapy.” All apps were manually reviewed and classified by English language support, date of last update, downloads, intended audience, intended purpose, and developer type. We also compared commercially available apps with those described in a recently conducted meta-analysis of oncology-app studies. We performed descriptive statistics using RStudio V1.2.335. Results: We identified 794 oncology-specific, English-language applications, but only 257 (32%) met basic quality standards and were considered evaluable. The primary reason for exclusion was lack of a recent update. Of included apps, almost half (47%) were found in the “Medical” Store Category and the majority were free (88%). The most common intended audience was healthcare professionals (45%), with 28% being geared towards the general public and 27% being intended for patients. The intended function was education for 37%, clinical decision support (CDS) for 19%, and patient support for 18%. Only 22% of education apps and 40% of CDS apps reported any formal app content review process. Web developers created 61% of apps, scientific societies created 10%, and hospitals/healthcare organizations created just 6% (Table). The most frequently downloaded apps tended to be geared toward educating/supporting the public. Of 54 studies that utilized mobile apps in oncology identified by a recent meta-analysis, only 2 could be matched to commercially available apps from our study, suggesting a substantial divide between investigation and product dissemination. Conclusions: Our analysis of oncology-related apps in the commercial marketplace found few high-quality, up-to-date apps, and a notable absence of key oncology stakeholders in app development. Future studies should explore barriers to developing and disseminating apps designed to advance oncology care delivery. [Table: see text]