Landscape Analysis of Oncology Mobile Health Applications

Features of Cancer mHealth Apps and Evidence for Patient Preferences: Scoping Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Cancer is increasingly being treated as a chronic disease rather than an acute one-time illness. Additionally, oral anticancer therapies, as opposed to intravenous chemotherapy, are now available for an increasing number of cancer indications. Mobile health (mHealth) apps for use on mobile devices (eg, smartphones or tablets) are designed to help patients with medication adherence, symptom tracking, and disease management. Several previous literature reviews have been conducted regarding mHealth apps for cancer. However, these studies did not address patient preferences for the features of cancer mHealth apps.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim was to review the scientific literature that describes the features and functions of mHealth apps designed for cancer self-management.

METHODS

As the purpose of this review was to explore the depth and breadth of research on mHealth app features for cancer self-management, a scoping review methodology was adopted. Four databases were used for this review: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Citation and reference searches were conducted for manuscripts meeting the inclusion criteria. A gray literature search was also conducted. Data extracted from manuscripts included author, title, publication date, study type, sampling type, cancer type, treatment, age of participants, features, availability (free or subscription), design input, and patient preferences. Finally, the features listed for each app were compared, highlighting similarities across platforms as well as features unique to each app.

RESULTS

After the removal of duplicates, 522 manuscripts remained for the title and abstract review, with 51 undergoing full-text review. A total of 7 manuscripts (referred to as studies hereafter) were included in the final scoping review. App features described in each study varied from 2 to 11, with a median of 4 features per app. The most reported feature was a symptom or side effect tracker, which was reported in 6 studies. Two apps specified the inclusion of patients and health care providers during the design, while 1 app noted that IT and communications experts provided design input. The utility of the apps for end users was measured in several ways, including acceptability (measuring the end users' experience), usability (assessing the functionality and performance by observing real users completing tasks), or qualitative data (reports from end users collected from interviews or focus groups).

CONCLUSIONS

This review explored the literature on cancer mHealth apps. Popular features within these mHealth apps include symptom trackers, cancer education, and medication trackers. However, these apps and features are often developed with little input from patients. Additionally, there is little information regarding patient preferences for the features of existing apps. While the number of cancer-related apps available for download continues to increase, further exploration of patient preferences for app features could result in apps that better meet patient disease self-management needs.

Care at Your Fingertips: Codesign, Development, and Evaluation of the Oncology Hub App for Remote Symptom Management in Pediatric Oncology

PURPOSE

To codesign, develop, and evaluate a smartphone app that includes patient-reported measures of symptoms and real-time advice in children's cancer.

METHODS

The Oncology Hub is a comprehensive approach to symptom management that includes a suite of codesigned tools and resources including clinical algorithms to determine the level of concern, symptom management advice, and resources for families of children with cancer. The evaluation involved Think Aloud interviews with parent and adolescent patients to complete tasks in the app as well as a User Experience questionnaire (score range, 0-120) and qualitative feedback. The accuracy of algorithms was determined by repeated testing of inputs and outputs over 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Design and wireframes were iteratively refined through consultation with parents and adolescents confirming the final design. Beta testing evaluation was then completed by 25 participants including two adolescents. Across all participants, 84% of tasks were easy to navigate, and the Oncology Hub demonstrated high usability, usefulness, and acceptability with participants' scores ranging between 90 and 120 (mean = 112.2, standard deviation = 9.43). Qualitative feedback was positive. Testing of algorithms identified inconsistencies in understanding between clinical research and coding teams; refinements were made until the expected response notifications were returned with 100% accuracy.

CONCLUSION

Technology offers new ways to think about how clinicians and families communicate and share information to harness the best of community and hospital services. Understanding how information is exchanged using health apps, and how this affects clinical workflow is critical to successful implementation, and optimizing symptom assessment and management in children with cancer.

Evaluation of mobile health applications for cervical cancer in the digital marketplace

Objective

To assess the quality of mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) for cervical cancer using the mobile app rating scale (MARS), APPLICATIONS scoring system, and app rating using specific statements.

Methods

We searched for cervical cancer apps on two major mobile operating systems (Google Play Store and Apple iTunes Store) in March 2021. Eligible apps were downloaded and assessed for quality by two independent reviewers using multimodal assessment tools.

Results

The overall quality of the MARS score was 2.61±0.795. The highest scoring app was “The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) Management Guidelines” (3.98). Overall, apps scored highest in the functionality domain, followed by information, engagement, and aesthetics domains. The mean±standard deviation of the APPLICATIONS scoring system was 8.50±1.712. The highest-rated apps were “ASCCP Management Guidelines,” “The British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (BSCCP),” and “Cervical Cancer Guide.” Apps scored the highest in the paid subscription and price domains. By contrast, apps scored poorly in the text search, literature, and subjective presentation domains. Concerning app content, many apps infrequently provided misconceptions regarding cervical cancer. The apps’ rating using specific statements was 7.81±4.562.

Conclusion

Overall, the apps analyzed using the MARS and APPLICATIONS scoring systems demonstrated above-average quality. However, there is a need to improve the essential information conveyed by these applications. Moreover, the assessment tools have influenced different app quality rating results, confirming the lack of standardized quality assessment tools for mHealth apps.

Effects of Mobile Application Program (App)-Assisted Health Education on Preventive Behaviors and Cancer Literacy among Women with Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia

Objective: This study aimed (1) to study the effects of health education on preventive behaviors and cancer literacy among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN); (2) to compare the effects of mobile application program (App)-assisted health education with traditional book-form health education. Participants: A total of 132 women ages 20 to 69 years women. Methods: This prospective longitudinal study enrolled 132 CIN women who were evaluated three times. Propensity score matching was used by controlling subjects’ age strata, body mass index, education level, occupation, and type of surgery. Results: The influences of various educational tools were investigated. Four domains were assessed, including health behavior, attitude towards behavior change, self-efficacy of behavior, and cervical cancer (CCa) literacy. Significant improvements in behavior change and CCa literacy due to a health education program were observed (p ≤ 0.002). The App combined with a traditional booklet had the highest score for behavior change and was significantly greater than the booklet-only learning (p = 0.002). The App-assisted form, either App alone or combined with booklet, had a significantly better impact on health promotion when compared to the booklet alone (p = 0.045 and 0.005, respectively). App-only learning had the highest score of CCa literacy (p = 0.004). Conclusion: Health education interventions can have positive effects in terms of change of behavior and CCa literacy. App-assisted learning could be used as a supportive technology, and App learning alone or combined with a traditional booklet may be an innovative model of clinical health promotion for women with CIN.