Brouard Benoit, Bardo Pascale, Bonnet Clément, Mounier Nicolas, Vignot Marina, Vignot Stéphane
a Oncology Hematology Department , Louis Pasteur Hospital , Chartres Le Coudray , France.
b Pharmacy Department , Henri Mondor Hospital - Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris , Créteil , France.
Ann Med. 2016 Nov;48(7):509-515. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2016.1195010. Epub 2016 Jun 27.
Mobile applications represent promising tools in management of chronic diseases, both for patients and healthcare professionals, and especially in oncology. Among the large number of mobile health (mhealth) applications available in mobile stores, it could be difficult for users to identify the most relevant ones. This study evaluated the business model and the scientific validation for mobile applications related to oncology.
A systematic review was performed over the two major marketplaces. Purpose, scientific validation, and source of funding were evaluated according to the description of applications in stores. Results were stratified according to targeted audience (general population/patients/healthcare professionals).
Five hundred and thirty-nine applications related to oncology were identified: 46.8% dedicated to healthcare professionals, 31.5% to general population, and 21.7% to patients. A lack of information about healthcare professionals' involvement in the development process was noted since only 36.5% of applications mentioned an obvious scientific validation. Most apps were free (72.2%) and without explicit support by industry (94.2%).
There is a need to enforce independent review of mhealth applications in oncology. The economic model could be questioned and the source of funding should be clarified. Meanwhile, patients and healthcare professionals should remain cautious about applications' contents. Key messages A systematic review was performed to describe the mobile applications related to oncology and it revealed a lack of information on scientific validation and funding. Independent scientific review and the reporting of conflicts of interest should be encouraged. Users, and all health professionals, should be aware that health applications, whatever the quality of their content, do not actually embrace such an approach.
移动应用程序对于慢性病管理而言是很有前景的工具，对患者和医疗保健专业人员均如此，尤其是在肿瘤学领域。在移动应用商店中大量可用的移动健康（mhealth）应用程序中，用户可能难以识别最相关的应用程序。本研究评估了与肿瘤学相关的移动应用程序的商业模式和科学验证情况。
对两个主要市场进行了系统评价。根据应用商店中应用程序的描述，评估其目的、科学验证情况和资金来源。结果根据目标受众（普通人群/患者/医疗保健专业人员）进行分层。
共识别出539个与肿瘤学相关的应用程序：46.8%专为医疗保健专业人员设计，31.5%针对普通人群，21.7%面向患者。由于只有36.5%的应用程序提及明显的科学验证，因此注意到有关医疗保健专业人员参与开发过程的信息不足。大多数应用程序是免费的（72.2%），且没有行业的明确支持（94.2%）。
有必要加强对肿瘤学领域移动健康应用程序的独立审查。经济模式可能存在问题，资金来源应予以澄清。同时，患者和医疗保健专业人员对应用程序的内容应保持谨慎。关键信息 进行了一项系统评价以描述与肿瘤学相关的移动应用程序，结果显示缺乏关于科学验证和资金的信息。应鼓励进行独立的科学审查并报告利益冲突。用户以及所有医疗专业人员都应意识到，健康应用程序无论其内容质量如何，实际上都未采用这样的方法。
