Mobile Health Applications for Caring of Older People: Review and Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Mobile devices and applications (apps) that act as access tools for health care management aid in the improvement of clinical decision making and patient outcomes. However, the tremendous amount of mobile health (mHealth) apps available in commercial app stores makes it hard for the lay users as well as health care professionals to choose the right one for their individual needs. The contents and features of these apps have not been systematically reviewed and compared. This study aims to assess the contents and features of mHealth apps for caring of older people. METHODS: A review and comparison of mHealth apps for caring of older people available in Google's Play Store (Android system) and Apple's App Store (iOS system) were performed. Systematic review of previous relevant literature were conducted. The assessment criteria used for comparison were requirement for Internet connection, information of disease, size of app, diagnostics and assessment tools, medical calculator, dosage recommendations and indications, clinical updates, drugs interaction checker, and information on disease management. RESULTS: Twenty-five mHealth apps were assessed. Medscape and Skyscape Medical Library are the most comprehensive mHealth apps for general drug information, medical references, clinical score, and medical calculator. Alzheimer's Disease Pocketcard and Confusion: Delirium & Dementia: A Bedside Guide apps are recommended for clinical assessment, diagnosis, drug information, and management of geriatric patients with Alzheimer disease, delirium, and dementia. CONCLUSIONS: More studies about mHealth apps for caring of older people are warranted to ensure the quality and reliability of the mHealth apps.

Mobile Health Applications for Pediatric Care: Review and Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Despite the surge in mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) about pediatric care in commercial app stores, to our knowledge, reviews of the quality of such apps are lacking. Consequently, it is a great challenge for health care professionals (HCPs) to identify appropriate and reliable mHealth apps for delivering health care services. Thus, we performed a structured review of the extant literature about mHealth apps in pediatric care and quality assessment of selected apps found in commercial app stores. METHODS: A review and comparison of mHealth apps in pediatric care found in Google's Play Store (Android system) and Apple's App Store (iOS system) were performed. For the structured review of the available literature, Google Scholar, PubMed, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, and Science Direct online databases were used for the literature search. The assessment criteria used for comparison included requirement for Internet connection, size of application, information on disease, diagnostic tools, medical calculator, information on disease treatments, dosage recommendations, and drug interaction checker. RESULTS: Fifty mHealth apps for general pediatric care and 8 mHealth apps for specific pediatric diseases were discussed in the literature. Of the 90 mHealth apps we reviewed, 27 that fulfilled the study criteria were selected for quality assessment. Medscape, Skyscape, and iGuideline scored the highest (score=7), while PediaBP scored the lowest (score=3). CONCLUSIONS: Medscape, Skyscape, and iGuideline are the most comprehensive mHealth apps for HCPs as quick references for pediatric care. More studies about mHealth apps in pediatric care are warranted to ensure the quality and reliability of mHealth apps.

The perspective of healthcare providers and patients on health literacy: a systematic review of the quantitative and qualitative studies.

AIM: Health literacy (HL) is a multifaceted concept, thus understanding the perspective of healthcare providers, patients, and the system is vital. This systematic review examines and synthesises the available studies on HL-related knowledge, attitude, practice, and perceived barriers. METHODS: CINAHL and Medline (via EBSCOhost), Google Scholar, PubMed, ProQuest, Sage Journals, and Science Direct were searched. Both quantitative and/or qualitative studies in the English language were included. Intervention studies and studies focusing on HL assessment tools and prevalence of low HL were excluded. The risk of biasness reduced with the involvement of two reviewers independently assessing study eligibility and quality. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies were included, which consist of 19 quantitative, 9 qualitative, and 2 mixed-method studies. Out of 17 studies, 13 reported deficiency of HL-related knowledge among healthcare providers and 1 among patients. Three studies showed a positive attitude of healthcare providers towards learning about HL. Another three studies demonstrated patients feel shame exposing their literacy and undergoing HL assessment. Common HL communication techniques reported practiced by healthcare providers were the use of everyday language, teach-back method, and providing patients with reading materials and aids, while time constraint was the most reported HL perceived barriers by both healthcare providers and patients. CONCLUSION: Significant gaps exists in HL knowledge among healthcare providers and patients that needs immediate intervention. Such as, greater effort placed in creating a health system that provides an opportunity for healthcare providers to learn about HL and patients to access health information with taking consideration of their perceived barriers.

Content Analysis of Mobile Health Applications on Diabetes Mellitus.

Diabetes self-management offers an opportunity to patients to be actively involved in managing their conditions and modifying lifestyle behaviors to attain positive health outcomes. With the unprecedented growth of mobile technology, smartphone plays a role in supporting diabetes self-management. Nonetheless, selecting appropriate mobile applications (apps) is challenging for patients. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate and compare the contents and features of mobile medical apps for diabetes self-management. Of 346 commercial apps, 16 (16%) and 19 (7.72%) of the diabetes apps found in Apple and Google Play stores, respectively, were included based on the selection criteria and individually scored for the availability of 8 main features of diabetes self-management. The apps supported self-management by offering features such as free installation, less than 50 MB space used, offline use, automated data entry, data export and sharing, educational tool, and advice. Of the 8 evaluated features, only 11 (31.4%) apps had a score of 5 whereas 7 (20%) apps scored the lowest, with a score of 3. The majority of apps were free, required no Internet connectivity to use and were less than 50 MB in size. Our findings showed that the design of diabetes mobile apps focused on reporting and setting reminders, rather than providing personalized education or therapeutic support. In the future, the design of apps could be improved to integrate patients' needs, usability for disease management, and lifestyle modifications.

Mobile Medical Applications for Dosage Recommendation, Drug Adverse Reaction, and Drug Interaction: Review and Comparison.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for a collation and comparison of the content of the mobile medical applications (apps) to allow health care professionals to know precisely which app they can rely on to gain access to appropriate drugs references. This study aims to evaluate the features of mobile medical apps based on 3 major functions: Dosage recommendation, drug adverse Reaction, And Drug Interaction (DoReADI). METHOD: A review and comparison of mobile apps available in Google's Play Store (Android system) and Apple's App Store (iOS system) were performed. The comparison was based on the availability of options, especially DoReADI functionalities. The assessment criteria were as follows: requirement for an Internet connection, subscription fee charged, size of app, dose recommendation, drug indication, dose calculator, drug picture, dose adjustment, pregnancy safety, interaction checker, interaction classification, clinical teaching advice, contraindicated drug, black box warning, adverse effect, contraindication or precaution, as well as toxicology and pharmacology information. RESULTS: Eight mobile medical apps were included and used to compare their features and functionalities. The 4 apps that scored the highest (14/17 points) are: Lexicomp®, Epocrates®, Micromedex®, and Drugs.com ®. Lexicomp and Micromedex do not provide the image of the drug and have an access subscription fee. Epocrates does not provide interaction classification and clinical teaching advice, and occupies a large space in the memory to be installed. Meanwhile, My Blue Book® scored the lowest (9/17 points) because certain features such as toxicology information, drug interaction, clinical teaching advice, contraindicated drug, and black box warning were not included. CONCLUSION: Based on the features assessment criteria of each mobile medical application, Lexicomp, Epocrates, Micromedex, and Drugs.com are the apps that scored the highest. Epocrates and Micromedex are useful for checking drug interactions. In addition, some of the apps have additional features for the DoReADI criteria, for example, dose calculator and interaction classification.

Dikir Farmasi: folk songs for health education.

In an effort to enhance public awareness, we develop Dikir Farmasi as an innovative approach to deliver health information. Dikir Farmasi combines the elements of dikir barat (a type of traditional folk song rhythm) and traditional sketches which are popular in the state of Kelantan, Malaysia. These sketches and dikir barat rhythmic songs, with lyrics touch on issues such as drug abuse and regulation are presented in an entertaining and humorous way. Health promotion messages are disseminated using Dikir Farmasi in the form of compact disks, video compact disks, stage performance, exhibition, social media, printed media (signboard, brochure and flyer).

Meta-synthesis exploring barriers to health seeking behaviour among Malaysian breast cancer patients.

Barriers to health seeking constitute a challenging issue in the treatment of breast cancer. The current meta- synthesis aimed to explore common barriers to health seeking among Malaysian breast cancer patients. From the systematic search, nine studies were found meeting the inclusion criteria. Data extraction revealed that health behavior towards breast cancer among Malaysia women was influenced by knowledge, psychological, sociocultural and medical system factors. In terms of knowledge, most of the Malaysian patients were observed to have cursory information and the reliance on the information provided by media was limiting. Among psychological factors, stress and sense of denial were some of the common factors leading to delay in treatment seeking. Family member's advice, cultural beliefs towards traditional care were some of the common sociocultural factors hindering immediate access to advanced medical diagnosis and care. Lastly, the delay in referral was one of the most common health system-related problems highlighted in most of the studies. In conclusion, there is an immediate need to improve the knowledge and understanding of Malaysian women towards breast cancer. Mass media should liaise with the cancer specialists to disseminate accurate and up-to-date information for the readers and audience, helping in modification of cultural beliefs that hinder timing health seeking. However, such intervention will not improve or rectify the health system related barriers to treatment seeking. Therefore, there is an immediate need for resource adjustment and training programs among health professional to improve their competency and professionalism required to develop an efficient health system.