↓ Skip to main content

The evolution of mobile apps for asthma: an updated systematic assessment of content and tools

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
60 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
124 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The evolution of mobile apps for asthma: an updated systematic assessment of content and tools
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0303-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kit Huckvale, Cecily Morrison, Jing Ouyang, Aseem Ghaghda, Josip Car

Abstract

Interest in mobile apps that support long-term conditions such as asthma is matched by recognition of the importance of the quality and safety of apps intended for patient use. We assessed how changes over a 2-year period affected the clinical suitability of apps providing self-management information and tools for people with asthma by updating a review first performed in 2011. Systematic content assessment of all apps for iOS and Android examining the comprehensiveness of asthma information, consistency with the evidence base for asthma self-management and adherence to best practice principles for trustworthy content, comparing the quality of apps available in 2011 to those released since. Between 2011 and 2013, numbers of asthma apps more than doubled from 93 to 191, despite withdrawal of 25% (n = 23/93) of existing apps. Newer apps were no more likely than those available in 2011 to include comprehensive information, such as the use of action plans, or offer guidance consistent with evidence; 13% (n = 19/147) of all apps, and 39% (n = 9/23) of those intended to manage acute asthma, recommended self-care procedures unsupported by evidence. Despite increases in the numbers of apps targeting specific skills, such as acute asthma management (n = 12 to 23) and inhaler technique (from n = 2 to 12), the proportion consistent with guidelines (17%, n = 4/23) and inhaler instructions (25%, n = 3/12), respectively, was low, and most apps provided only either basic information about asthma (50%, n = 75/147) or simple diary functions (24%, n = 36/147). In addition to persisting questions about clinical quality and safety, dynamic aspects of app turnover and feature evolution affect the suitability of asthma apps for use in routine care. The findings underline the need for coordinated quality assurance processes that can adapt to changing clinical and information governance-related risks, ensure compliance with the evidence base and reflect local variations in clinical practice. It is unclear if substantial clinical benefits can be realized from a landscape dominated by low quality generic information apps and tools that do not adhere to accepted medical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Canada 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 218 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 15%
Researcher 32 14%
Student > Bachelor 30 13%
Student > Postgraduate 18 8%
Other 43 19%
Unknown 22 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 12%
Computer Science 27 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 5%
Psychology 10 4%
Other 46 20%
Unknown 30 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2019.
All research outputs
#433,780
of 16,094,275 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#349
of 2,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,902
of 226,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,094,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 226,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them