Abstract
BackgroundCurrently, there are no binding requirements for manufacturers prescribing which information must be included in the app descriptions of health apps.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate how medical students perceive a selection of quality principles, intended for usage decisions in the app context, and establish whether the information presented in a sample of app descriptions is perceived as sufficient for facilitating an informed usage decision.MethodsA total of 123 students (mean age 24.2 years, SD 3.4) participating in a 6-week teaching module covering cardiology and pulmonology at the University of Göttingen (original enrollment 152 students, response rate 80.9%) were included. Students were asked to read 3 store description texts of cardiological or pneumological apps and initially assess whether the descriptions sufficed for a usage decision. Subsequently, they were queried on their perception of the relevance of 9 predefined quality principles, formulated for usage decisions. An appraisal of whether the app description texts contained sufficient information to satisfy these quality principles followed. By means of 20 guiding questions, participants were then asked to identify relevant information (or a lack thereof) within the descriptions. A reassessment of whether the description texts sufficed for making a usage decision ensued. A total of 343 complete datasets were obtained.ResultsA majority of the quality principles were described as “very important” and “important” for making a usage decision. When accessed via the predefined principles, students felt unable to identify sufficient information within the app descriptions in 68.81% (2124/3087) of cases. Notably, information regarding undesired effects (91.8%, 315/343), ethical soundness (90.1%, 309/343), measures taken to avert risks (89.2%, 306/343), conflicts of interest (88.3%, 303/343), and the location of data storage (87.8%, 301/343) was lacking. Following participants’ engagement with the quality principles, statistically significant changes in their assessment of whether the app descriptions sufficed for a usage decision can be seen—McNemar-Bowker test (3)=45.803919, P<.001, Cohen g=.295. In 34.1% (117/343) cases, the assessment was revised. About 3 quarters of changed assessments were seen more critically (76.9%, 90/117). Although, initially, 70% (240/343) had been considered “sufficient,” this rate was reduced to 54.2% (186/343) in the second assessment.ConclusionsIn a considerable number of app descriptions, participants were unable to locate the information necessary for making an informed usage decision. Participants’ sensitization to the quality principles led to changes in their assessment of app descriptions as a tool for usage decisions. Better transparency in app descriptions released by manufacturers and the exposure of users to quality principles could collectively form the basis for well-founded usage decisions.
Highlights
BackgroundThe market for health apps, that is, health-related apps running on mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers, is highly liberal and poorly regulated
Better transparency in app descriptions released by manufacturers and the exposure of users to quality principles could collectively form the basis for well-founded usage decisions
After working with the quality principles, the students were asked if they were able to determine whether these principles were met on the basis of the app descriptions (Q3, Table 5)
Summary
The market for health apps, that is, health-related apps running on mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers, is highly liberal and poorly regulated This facilitates the creation of software, resulting in a large supply and immensely influences user access and app usage. This aspect offers the greatest possible user comfort in both private and professional settings Despite this unique advantage, it is important to recognize and respect certain legal boundaries, addressing laws concerning medical practitioners [15]. Other information or test results and quality seals and the like are not often readily and reliably available [14] without (greater and time-consuming) research effort, or their reliability may be questionable because of various reasons For this to be effective, it is imperative that manufacturers provide transparent information about their apps. There are no binding requirements for manufacturers prescribing which information must be included in the app descriptions of health apps
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
