Use of Health Apps and Wearable Devices: Survey Among Italian Associations for Patient Advocacy

by | Jan 15, 2019 | Research Publications

Author(s):

  • Paola Mosconi
  • Silvia Radrezza
  • Emanuele Lettieri
  • Eugenio Santoro

Abstract:

Background: Technological tools such as Web-based social networks, telemedicine, apps, or wearable devices are becoming more widespread in health care like elsewhere. Although patients are the main users, for example, to monitor symptoms and clinical parameters or to communicate with the doctor, their perspective is seldom analyzed, and to the best of our knowledge, no one has focused on the patients’ health care advocacy associations’ point of view.

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess patients’ health care advocacy associations’ opinions about the use, usefulness, obstacles, negative aspects, and impact of health apps and wearable devices through a Web-based survey.

Methods: We conducted a Web-based survey through SurveyMonkey over nearly 3 months. Participants were contacted via an email explaining the aims of the survey and providing a link to complete the Web-based questionnaire. All the 20 items were mandatory, and the anonymized data were collected automatically into a database. Only fully completed questionnaires were considered for analysis.

Results: We contacted 1998 patients’ health care advocacy associations; a total of 258 questionnaires were received back (response rate 12.91%), and 227 of the received questionnaires were fully completed (completion rate 88.0%). Informative apps, hospital apps for viewing medical reports or booking visits, and those for monitoring physical activity are the most used. They are considered especially useful to improve patients’ engagement and compliance with treatment. Wearable devices to check physical activity and glycemia are the most widespread considering, again, their benefits in increasing patients’ involvement and treatment compliance. For health apps and wearable devices, the main obstacles to their use are personal and technical reasons; the risk of overmedicalization is considered the most negative aspect of their constant use, while privacy and confidentiality of data are not rated a limitation. No statistical difference was found on stratifying the answers by responders’ technological level (P=.30), age (P=.10), and the composition of the association’s advisory board (P=.15).

Conclusions: According to responders, health apps and wearable devices are sufficiently known and used and are considered potential supports for greater involvement in health management. However, there are still obstacles to their adoption, and the developers need to work to make them more accessible and more useful. The involvement of patients and their associations in planning services and products based on these technologies (as well as others) would be desirable to overcome these barriers and boost awareness about privacy and the confidentiality of data.

Documentation:

https://doi.org/10.2196/10242

References:
  1. Jacques Rose K, Petrut C, L’Heveder R, de Sabata S. IDF Europe position on mobile applications in diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2017 Sep 07. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Martínez-Pérez B, de la Torre-Díez I, López-Coronado M, Herreros-González J. Mobile apps in cardiology: review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2013 Jul 24;1(2):e15 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. Pinto S, Caldeira S, Martins JC. e-Health in palliative care: review of literature, Google Play and App Store. Int J Palliat Nurs 2017 Aug 02;23(8):394-401. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. Santoro E, Castelnuovo G, Zoppis I, Mauri G, Sicurello F. Social media and mobile applications in chronic disease prevention and management. Front Psychol 2015;6:567 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Piwek L, Ellis DA, Andrews S, Joinson A. The Rise of Consumer Health Wearables: Promises and Barriers. PLoS Med 2016 Feb;13(2):e1001953 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Kantar Worldpanel ComTech. Marketwired. 2016. Kantar Launches Quarterly Report for Wearable Technology   URL: http:/​/www.​marketwired.com/​press-release/​kantar-launches-quarterly-report-for-wearable-technology-2121234.​htm [accessed 2018-11-14] [WebCite Cache]
  7. Research2Guidance. 2017 Nov. mHealth App Economics 2017: Current Status and Future Trends in Mobile Health   URL: https:/​/research2guidance.​com/​product/​mhealth-economics-2017-current-status-and-future-trends-in-mobile-health/​ [accessed 2018-11-18]
  8. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Jul 01. Mobile health and fitness apps: what are the privacy risks?   URL: https://www.privacyrights.org/consumer-guides/mobile-health-and-fitness-apps-what-are-privacy-risks [accessed 2018-11-15] [WebCite Cache]
  9. BinDhim NF, Trevena L. Health-related smartphone apps: regulations, safety, privacy and quality. BMJ Innov 2015 Mar 05;1(2):43-45. [CrossRef]
  10. Torous J, Roberts LW. The Ethical Use of Mobile Health Technology in Clinical Psychiatry. J Nerv Ment Dis 2017 Jan;205(1):4-8. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Sunyaev A, Dehling T, Taylor PL, Mandl KD. Availability and quality of mobile health app privacy policies. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015 Apr;22(e1):e28-e33. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Leenes R, van Barkel R, Gutwirth S, De Hert P. Data Protection and Privacy: (In)visibilities and Infrastructures. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2017:796.
  13. Volp KG, Mohta NS. NEJM Catalyst. 2017 Jul 10. Patient Engagement Survey: Technology Tools Gain Support — But Cost Is a Hurdle   URL: https://catalyst.nejm.org/patient-engagement-technology-tools-gain-support/
  14. European Commission. 2014 Apr 10. Green Paper on mobile health (“mHealth”)   URL: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/green-paper-mobile-health-mhealth [accessed 2018-11-15] [WebCite Cache]
  15. Wu Y, Yao X, Vespasiani G, Nicolucci A, Dong Y, Kwong J, et al. Mobile App-Based Interventions to Support Diabetes Self-Management: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials to Identify Functions Associated with Glycemic Efficacy. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 Mar 14;5(3):e35 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  16. European Commission. 2014 Oct. Public Perceptions of Science, Research and Innovation   URL: http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_419_en.pdf
  17. Accenture Consulting. Patients Want a Heavy Dose of Digital   URL: https:/​/www.​accenture.com/​_acnmedia/​PDF-8/​Accenture-Patients-Want-A-Heavy-Dose-of-Digital-Infographic-v2.​pdf [accessed 2018-11-15] [WebCite Cache]
  18. Carroll JK, Moorhead A, Bond R, LeBlanc WG, Petrella RJ, Fiscella K. Who Uses Mobile Phone Health Apps and Does Use Matter? A Secondary Data Analytics Approach. J Med Internet Res 2017 Dec 19;19(4):e125 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  19. Wen D, Zhang X, Lei J. Consumers’ perceived attitudes to wearable devices in health monitoring in China: A survey study. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2017 Mar;140:131-137. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Richards T, Montori VM, Godlee F, Lapsley P, Paul D. Let the patient revolution begin. BMJ 2013 May 14;346(may14 1):f2614-f2614. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  21. SurveyMonkey.   URL: https://www.surveymonkey.com/ [accessed 2018-11-18]
  22. de Vries ST, Denig P, Lasheras Ruiz C, Houÿez F, Wong L, Sutcliffe A, IMI Web-RADR Work Package 3b Consortium. Interest in a Mobile App for Two-Way Risk Communication: A Survey Study Among European Healthcare Professionals and Patients. Drug Saf 2018 Dec;41(7):697-712 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  23. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 2004 Dec 29;6(3):e34 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  24. Bennett C, Khangura S, Brehaut JC, Graham ID, Moher D, Potter BK, et al. Reporting guidelines for survey research: an analysis of published guidance and reporting practices. PLoS Med 2010 Aug;8(8):e1001069 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  25. Covolo L, Ceretti E, Moneda M, Castaldi S, Gelatti U. Does evidence support the use of mobile phone apps as a driver for promoting healthy lifestyles from a public health perspective? A systematic review of Randomized Control Trials. Patient Educ Couns 2017 Dec;100(12):2231-2243. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  26. Fox G, Garland S, Keibel A, Saxon LA. NEJM Catalyst. 2017 Sep 14. Why People Stick With or Abandon Wearable Devices   URL: https://catalyst.nejm.org/stay-abandon-wearable-devices/ [accessed 2018-11-15] [WebCite Cache]
  27. Machado G, Pinheiro MB, Lee H, Ahmed OH, Hendrick P, Williams C, et al. Smartphone apps for the self-management of low back pain: A systematic review. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2016 Dec;30(6):1098-1109 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  28. Huckvale K, Prieto JT, Tilney M, Benghozi P, Car J. Unaddressed privacy risks in accredited health and wellness apps: a cross-sectional systematic assessment. BMC Med 2015 Sep 07;13:214 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  29. Fan W, Yan Z. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior 2010 Mar;26(2):132-139. [CrossRef]