Systematic Review of Commercially Available Mobile Phone Applications for Prostate Cancer Education

Prostate Cancer Foundation Screening Guidelines for Black Men in the United States

BACKGROUND

In the United States, Black men are at highest risk for being diagnosed with and dying from prostate cancer. Given this disparity, we examined relevant data to establish clinical prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening guidelines for Black men in the United States.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search identified 1848 unique publications for screening. Of those screened, 287 studies were selected for full-text review, and 264 were considered relevant and form the basis for these guidelines. The numbers were reported according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials provided Level 1 evidence that regular PSA screening of men 50 to 74 years of age of average risk reduced metastasis and prostate cancer death at 16 to 22 years of follow-up. The best available evidence specifically for Black men comes from observational and modeling studies that consider age to obtain a baseline PSA, frequency of testing, and age when screening should end. Cohort studies suggest that discussions about baseline PSA testing between Black men and their clinicians should begin in the early 40s, and data from modeling studies indicate prostate cancer develops 3 to 9 years earlier in Black men compared with non-Black men. Lowering the age for baseline PSA testing to 40 to 45 years of age from 50 to 55 years of age, followed by regular screening until 70 years of age (informed by PSA values and health factors), could reduce prostate cancer mortality in Black men (approximately 30% relative risk reduction) without substantially increasing overdiagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines recommend that Black men should obtain information about PSA screening for prostate cancer. Among Black men who elect screening, baseline PSA testing should occur between ages 40 and 45. Depending on PSA value and health status, annual screening should be strongly considered. (Supported by the Prostate Cancer Foundation.).

Smartphone Apps for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies: Systematic Review and Evaluation of Content

BACKGROUND

Hematological malignancies (HMs) are a heterogeneous group of cancers representing a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. The chronification of HMs and the increasing use of smartphones may lead patients to seek their current unmet needs through mobile health apps.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this review was to identify and assess the quality of smartphone apps aimed at patients diagnosed with HMs.

METHODS

A systematic search of apps that were aimed at patients diagnosed with HMs, accessed from a Spain IP address, and were available on the iOS (App Store) and Android (Google Play) platforms was conducted in November 2021. The search terms used were "hematology," "blood cancer," "leukemia," "lymphoma," and "myeloma" apps in English, Spanish, or both languages. The identified apps were downloaded and analyzed independently by 2 reviewers. Information about general app characteristics was collected. The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) was used to assess quality. The resulting parameter of the analyses, the mean score of the apps, was compared by Student t test.

RESULTS

Overall, 18 apps were identified; 7 were available on Android, 5 were available on iOS, and 6 were available on both platforms. All included apps were free; 3 were published in 2021, and among the apps published before 2021, only 6 were updated in 2021. Most (16/18, 89%) of the apps were aimed at patients with leukemia or lymphoma (16). The primary purposes of the apps were to provide general information about the condition (16/18, 89%) and monitor symptoms and clinical parameters (11/18, 61%). Health care professionals contributed to the development of 50% (9/18) of apps; 6 were owned and supported by scientific societies, and 3 were developed with the participation of health care professionals. The mean MARS score for the overall quality of the apps was 3.1 (SD 1.0). The engagement and aesthetics subscales were the lowest rated subscales, with only 44% (8/18) and 67% (12/18), respectively, of the apps obtaining acceptable scores. None of the included apps proved clinical efficacy through clinical trials in patients with HMs. Statistically significant differences were found in the MARS scores between operating systems (+1.0, P=.003) in favor of iOS apps. The participation of health care professionals in the development of the apps did not have a statistically significant impact on the MARS scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic search and evaluation identified few acceptable quality mobile apps for patients with HMs. Current and future apps for patients with HMs should provide evidence-based valuable information, improve user engagement, incorporate functions according to patient preferences, and generate evidence regarding the efficacy of app use by patients with HMs.

Empowerment through technology: A systematic evaluation of the content and quality of mobile applications to empower individuals with cancer

OBJECTIVE

Greater emphasis on patient empowerment has led to a plethora of mobile health applications aimed at empowering patients with cancer. However, the rigor and evidence of these apps are rarely acknowledged. This systematic review of patient empowerment apps describes the characteristics, quality, heuristics, and evidence supporting these apps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified commercially available apps through the Apple and Google Play stores using patient- and research-derived conceptualizations of patient empowerment. Three authors used the Mobile App Rating Scale, heuristics, readability, user ratings, and evidence to evaluate the apps' foci, features, and quality. App characteristics were summarized with descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

Twelve apps met the eligibility criteria and were analyzed. Apps' content focused on enhancing communication skills (n = 10, 83.3%), social support (n = 8, 66.7%), information about cancer and treatment (n = 8, 66.7%), and peer-to-peer support (n = 5, 41.7%). The mean objective (3.9 ± 0.5 out of 5) and subjective (3.7 ± 1.0 out of 5) quality scores were moderate to high. Most heuristics were not violated, and the mean reading level was 10th grade, which is above the recommended 8th grade level. Four apps had been evaluated in published research articles.

DISCUSSION

The contents of patient empowerment apps varied greatly, and the readability was exclusionary to the average reader. Apps.

CONCLUSION

Patient empowerment apps should be more rigorously designed and tested to ensure the apps are usable and beneficial to diverse groups of cancer survivors.

Pentz R. Prostate Cancer: Community Education and Disparities in Diagnosis and Treatment

Prostate cancer remains the leading diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of death among American men. Despite improvements in screening modalities, diagnostics, and treatment, disparities exist among Black men in this country. The primary objective of this systematic review is to describe the reported disparities in screening, diagnostics, and treatments as well as efforts to alleviate these disparities through community and educational outreach efforts. Critical review took place of retrospective, prospective, and socially descriptive data of English language publications in the PubMed database. Despite more advanced presentation, lower rates of screening and diagnostic procedures, and low rates of trial inclusion, subanalyses have shown that various modalities of therapy are quite effective in Black populations. Moreover, patients treated on prospective clinical trials and within equal-access care environments have shown similar outcomes regardless of race. Additional prospective studies and enhanced participation in screening, diagnostic and genetic testing, clinical trials, and community-based educational endeavors are important to ensure equitable progress in prostate cancer for all patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Notable progress has been made with therapeutic advances for prostate cancer, but racial disparities continue to exist. Differing rates in screening and utility in diagnostic procedures play a role in these disparities. Black patients often present with more advanced disease, higher prostate-specific antigen, and other adverse factors, but outcomes can be attenuated in trials or in equal-access care environments. Recent data have shown that multiple modalities of therapy are quite effective in Black populations. Novel and bold hypotheses to increase inclusion in clinical trial, enhance decentralized trial efforts, and enact successful models of patient navigation and community partnership are vital to ensure continued progress in prostate cancer disparities.

Safety concerns with consumer-facing mobile health applications and their consequences: a scoping review

Objective

To summarize the research literature about safety concerns with consumer-facing health apps and their consequences.

Materials and Methods

We searched bibliographic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane libraries from January 2013 to May 2019 for articles about health apps. Descriptive information about safety concerns and consequences were extracted and classified into natural categories. The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) statement.

Results

Of the 74 studies identified, the majority were reviews of a single or a group of similar apps (n = 66, 89%), nearly half related to disease management (n = 34, 46%). A total of 80 safety concerns were identified, 67 related to the quality of information presented including incorrect or incomplete information, variation in content, and incorrect or inappropriate response to consumer needs. The remaining 13 related to app functionality including gaps in features, lack of validation for user input, delayed processing, failure to respond to health dangers, and faulty alarms. Of the 52 reports of actual or potential consequences, 5 had potential for patient harm. We also identified 66 reports about gaps in app development, including the lack of expert involvement, poor evidence base, and poor validation.

Conclusions

Safety of apps is an emerging public health issue. The available evidence shows that apps pose clinical risks to consumers. Involvement of consumers, regulators, and healthcare professionals in development and testing can improve quality. Additionally, mandatory reporting of safety concerns is needed to improve outcomes.

[Digital innovation in medicine: the COVID-19 pandemic as an accelerator of "digital health"]

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a wave of digitalization in medicine. In the coming years, the use of state-of-the-art technologies will revolutionize routine diagnostic and treatment approaches, as well as have a positive effect on the physician-patient relationship. The application of AI (artificial intelligence) and Big Data, combined with the development of mHealth (mobile health), represents the most significant milestone in the creation of a digital and intelligent health system!

Mobile Health App for Prostate Cancer Patients on Androgen Deprivation Therapy: Qualitative Usability Study

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) increases the risk of metabolic adverse effects among patients with prostate cancer. The transformative impact of mobile health (mHealth) apps may benefit men managing activity and nutrition at home.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the usability and patient experience of a newly developed mHealth app among prostate cancer patients on ADT and physicians' beliefs about the potential benefits of using this app.

METHODS

This study took place over 2 months, beginning in March 2019. A sample of 5 patients (age 45-75 years) initiating ADT participated in a semistructured focus group discussion with a facilitator. The study participants also included 5 specialist physicians who provided in-depth interviews. An institutional review board-approved script was used to guide both the focus group and physician interviews. Usability was tested through specific scenarios presented to the patients, including downloading the mHealth app, entering information on physical activity and meals, and navigating the app. The focus group and interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Content analysis was used to analyze the transcripts iteratively and exhaustively. Thematic discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through consensus.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 62 years. This group included 4 White and 1 Latin American patients. The physician specialists included 2 urologists, 2 medical oncologists, and 1 radiation oncologist. Analyses revealed that the patients appreciated the holistic care enabled by the app. Difficulties were observed with registration of the app among 60% (3/5) of the patients; however, all the patients were able to input information about their physical activity and navigate the options within the app. Most patients (4/5, 80%) were able to input data on their recent meal. Among the health care physicians, the dominant themes reflected in the interviews included undermining of patients ability to use technology, patients' fear of technology, and concern for the ability of older patients to access technology.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients reported an overall positive experience of using an mHealth app to record and track diet and exercise. Usability was observed to be an important factor for adoption and was determined by ease of registration and use, intuitive appearance of the app, and focus on holistic cancer care. The physicians believed that the app was easy to use but raised concerns about usability among older men who may not typically use smartphone apps.

The Impact of Mobile Health on Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

Introduction:

Mobile health is an emerging technology around the world that can be effective in cancer screening. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of mobile health applications on cancer screening.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic literature review of studies related to the use of mobile health applications in cancer screening. We also conducted a comprehensive search of articles on cancer screening related to the use of mobile health applications in journals published between January 1, 2008, and January 31, 2019, using 5 databases: IEEE, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct and PubMed.

Results:

A total of 23 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the present review. All studies have identified positive effects of applications on cancer screening and clinical health outcomes. Furthermore, more than half of mobile applications had multiple functions such as providing information, planning and education. Moreover, most of the studies, which examined the satisfaction of patients and quality improvement, showed healthcare application users have significantly higher satisfaction of living and it leads to improving quality.

Conclusion:

This study found that the use of mobile health applications has a positive impact on health-related behaviours and outcomes. Application users were more satisfied with applying mobile health applications to manage their health condition in comparison with users who received conventional care.

Review of smartphone mobile applications for skin cancer detection: what are the changes in availability, functionality, and costs to users over time?

Smartphone applications (apps) are available to consumers for skin cancer prevention and early detection. This study aims to review changes over time in the skin cancer apps available to consumers as well as their functionality and costs. Apps for the prevention of skin cancer were searched on two major smartphone app stores (Android and iOS) in June 2019. The number, functionality, ratings, and price of the apps were described and compared to similar reviews of the skin cancer app market from 2014 to 2017. Overall, the June 2019 search identified 66 apps. Of 39 apps found in 2014, 30 were no longer available in 2019 representing an attrition rate of 77%; of 43 apps available in 2017, attrition was 46.5%. In 2019, 63.6% (n = 42/66) of apps were free to download compared to 53.5% (n = 23/43) in 2017. Input from clinician/professional bodies was evident for 47.0% (n = 31/66) of the apps in 2019 compared to 34.9% (15/43) in 2017. The most common app functionality offered in 2019 was monitoring/tracking of lesions at 48.5% (n = 32/66). Since 2014, there has been a steady increase in the number of apps available for the general public to support the prevention or early detection of skin cancers. There continues to be a high turnover of apps, and many apps still appear to lack clinician input and/or evidence for their safety and value.

Assessing Apps for Patients with Genitourinary Tumors Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS): Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis

BACKGROUND

The large number of available cancer apps and their impact on the population necessitates a transparent, objective, and comprehensive evaluation by app experts, health care professionals, and users. To date, there have been no analyses or classifications of apps for patients with genitourinary cancers, which are among the most prevalent types of cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to analyze the quality of apps for patients diagnosed with genitourinary cancers using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) and identify high-quality apps.

METHODS

We performed an observational cross-sectional descriptive study of all smartphone apps for patients diagnosed with genitourinary cancers available on iOS and Android platforms. In July 2019, we searched for all available apps for patients with genitourinary cancers (bladder, prostate, cervical, uterine, endometrial, kidney, testicular, and vulvar) or their caregivers. Apps were downloaded and evaluated, and the general characteristics were entered into a database. The evaluation was performed by 2 independent researchers using the MARS questionnaire, which rates 23 evaluation criteria clustered in 5 domains (Engagement, Functionality, Esthetics, Information, and Subjective Quality) on a scale from 1 to 5.

RESULTS

In total, 46 apps were analyzed. Of these, 31 (67%) were available on Android, 6 (13%) on iOS, and 9 (20%) on both platforms. The apps were free in 89% of cases (41/46), and 61% (28/46) had been updated in the previous year. The apps were intended for prostate cancer in 30% of cases (14/46) and cervical cancer in 17% (8/46). The apps were mainly informative (63%, 29/46), preventive (24%, 11/46), and diagnostic (13%, 6/46). Only 7/46 apps (15%) were developed by health care organizations. The mean MARS score for the overall quality of the 46 apps was 2.98 (SD 0.77), with a maximum of 4.63 and a minimum of 1.95. Functionality scores were quite similar for most of the apps, with the greatest differences in Engagement and Esthetics, which showed acceptable scores in one-third of the apps. The 5 apps with the highest MARS score were the following: "Bladder cancer manager," "Kidney cancer manager," "My prostate cancer manager," "Target Ovarian Cancer Symptoms Diary," and "My Cancer Coach." We observed statistically significant differences in the MARS score between the operating systems and the developer types (P<.001 and P=.01, respectively), but not for cost (P=.62).

CONCLUSIONS

MARS is a helpful methodology to decide which apps can be prescribed to patients and to identify which features should be addressed to improve these tools. Most of the apps designed for patients with genitourinary cancers only try to provide data about the disease, without coherent interactivity. The participation of health professionals in the development of these apps is low; nevertheless, we observed that both the participation of health professionals and regular updates were correlated with quality.

Do prostate cancer-related mobile phone apps have a role in contemporary prostate cancer management? A systematic review by EAU young academic urologists (YAU) urotechnology group

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To review the available literature regarding the use of prostate cancer-related mobile phone applications (PCA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search was for English language articles between inceptions of databases to June 2019. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched. Full-text articles were reviewed, and the following data were extracted to aid with app analysis: name of application, developer, platform (Apple App Store or Google Play Store) and factors assessed by the article.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1825 results of which 13 studies were included in the final review. 44 PCAs were identified from the data collected of which 59% of the PCAs had an educational focus. 11 apps were inactive and 5 weren't updated within the last year. Five studies focused on the development and testing of apps (MyHealthAvatar, CPC, Rotterdam, Interaktor, NED). Two studies evaluated the readability of PCAs. Most PCAs had a reading level greater than that of the average patient. Two studies evaluated the quality and accuracy of apps. Majority of PCAs were accurate with a wide range of information. The study reported most PCAs to have deficient or insufficient scores for data protection. Two studies evaluated the accuracy of Rotterdam, CORAL and CPC risk calculators. Rotterdam was the best performer.

CONCLUSIONS

PCAs are currently in its infancy and do require further development before widespread integration into existing clinical practise. There are concerns with data protection, high readability standards and lack of information update in current PCAs. If developed appropriately with responsible governance, they do have the potential to play important roles in modern-day prostate cancer management.

Smartphone technology and its applications in urology: a review of the literature

PURPOSE

Smartphone technology has propelled the evolution of health-related mobile technology, referred to as mobile health (mHealth). With the rise of smartphone ownership and the growing popularity of health-related smartphone usage, mHealth offers potential benefits for both patients and health care providers. The objective of this review is to assess the current state of smartphone technology in urology.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed database was conducted to identify articles reporting on smartphone technology in urology. Publications were included if they focused on smartphone mHealth technology pertinent to the field of urology or included an evaluation of urological applications in digital stores.

RESULTS

We identified 50 publications focused on the use of smartphones in urology. Studies were then grouped into the following categories: smartphones employing the built-in camera and light source, applications specific to prostate cancer, urolithiasis, pediatric urology, and as educational tools for urologists. In 23/50 (46%) studies, smartphone technology/intervention was compared to a control group or to standard of care. In this regard, smartphone technology did not demonstrate benefit over standard of care in 13 studies. In contrast, in 10 studies, smartphone interventions were proven beneficial over current practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Smartphone technology is constantly evolving and has the potential to improve urological care and education. Of concern to consumer and urologist alike is that these downloadable programs are limited due to the accuracy of their content, risk of confidentiality breach, and the lack of central regulation and professional involvement in their development.

Improving cirrhosis care: The potential for telemedicine and mobile health technologies

Decompensated cirrhosis is a condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While there have been significant efforts to develop quality metrics that ensure high-value care of these patients, wide variations in clinical practice exist. In this opinion review, we discuss the quality gap in the care of patients with cirrhosis, including low levels of compliance with recommended cancer screening and other clinical outcome and patient-reported outcome measures. We posit that innovations in telemedicine and mobile health (mHealth) should play a key role in closing the quality gaps in liver disease management. We highlight interventions that have been performed to date in liver disease and heart failure-from successful teleconsultation interventions in the care of veterans with cirrhosis to the use of telemonitoring to reduce hospital readmissions and decrease mortality rates in heart failure. Telemedicine and mHealth can effectively address unmet needs in the care of patients with cirrhosis by increasing preventative care, expanding outreach to rural communities, and increasing high-value care. We aim to highlight the benefits of investing in innovative solutions in telemedicine and mHealth to improve care for patients with cirrhosis and create downstream cost savings.

Outpatient Cancer Care Delivery in the Context of E-Oncology: A French Perspective on "Cancer outside the Hospital Walls"

In oncology, the treatment of patients outside of hospitals has become imperative due to an increasing number of patients who are older and live longer, along with issues such as medical desertification, oncologist hyperspecialization, and difficulties in financing mounting health expenditures. Treatments have become less "invasive", with greater precision and efficiency. Patients can therefore receive most of their care outside of hospitals. The development of e-health can address these new imperatives. In this letter, we describe the different e-health tools and their potential clinical impacts in oncology, as already reported at every level of care, including education, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring. A few randomized studies have yet demonstrated the clinical benefit. We also comment on issues and limits of "cancer outside the hospital walls" from the point of view of patients, health care professionals, health facilities, and public authorities. Care providers in hospitals and communities will have to adapt to these changes within well-coordinated networks in order to better meet patient expectations regarding increasing education and personalizing management. Ultimately, controlled studies should aim to definitively demonstrate areas of interest, benefits, and incentives, for not only patients, but also caregivers (formal and informal) and health care providers, health care facilities, and the nation.