ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Mobile-health applications are revolutionising the way healthcare is being delivered. However, current research focusses on apps aimed at monitoring of conditions rather than the prevention of disease. Healthcare apps that prevent disease can be classified as lifestyle apps (LAs) and encompass mindfulness, exercise, and diet apps. In order for widespread implementation of these apps, perspectives of the user must be taken into consideration. Therefore, this systematic literature review identifies the barriers and facilitators to the use of LAs from a user's perspective. OBJECTIVE: To both identify the facilitators to the use of LAs from a user perspective as well as identify the barriers to the use of LAs from a user perspective. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Qualitative articles focussed on a healthy non-diseased population were obtained. Two independent researchers coded the articles, and themes were identified. RESULTS: Our results found that there were five barriers and five facilitators to app use. The facilitators included (1) motivational aspects to the user, (2) effective marketing and communication, (3) user-centred design and content, (4) humanising technology, and (5) accessibility. The five barriers identified were (1) a non-conducive, (2) poor marketing and branding, (3) controlling and invasive, (4) disengaging content, and (5) inaccessibility. CONCLUSIONS: By overcoming the barriers of LAs and encouraging the facilitators found, users are more likely to engage with this method of health promotion. Future research must be conducted on the barriers and facilitators to development and distribution of apps in order for LAs to be implemented in widespread healthcare practice.
ABSTRACT
Background: The UK National Health Service (NHS) propose the use of oxybutynin prior to onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) in the management of overactive bladder syndrome (OAB). Oxybutynin is costly and associated with poor adherence, which may not occur with Botox. We conducted a cost-utility analysis (CUA) to compare the medications. Methods: we compared the two treatments in quality-adjusted life years (QALYS), through the NHS's perspective. Costs were obtained from UK-based sources and were discounted. Total costs were determined by adding the treatment cost and management cost for complications on each branch. A 12-month time frame was used to model the data into a decision tree. Results: Our results found that using Botox first-line had greater cost utility than oxybutynin. The health net benefit calculation showed an increase in 0.22 QALYs when Botox was used first-line. Botox also had greater cost-effectiveness, with the exception of pediatric patients with an ICER of £42,272.14, which is above the NICE threshold of £30,000. Conclusion: Botox was found to be more cost-effective than antimuscarinics in the management of OAB in adults, however less cost-effective in younger patients. This predicates the need for further research to ascertain the age at which Botox becomes cost-effective in the management of OAB.