Mobile Phone Apps for Pelvic Floor Disorders.

IF 0.8 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.) Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001541
Madison Kasoff, Leael Alishahian, Justin Gimoto, Adi Steinhart, Cara L Grimes, Dominique Malacarne Pape
{"title":"Mobile Phone Apps for Pelvic Floor Disorders.","authors":"Madison Kasoff, Leael Alishahian, Justin Gimoto, Adi Steinhart, Cara L Grimes, Dominique Malacarne Pape","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001541","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Up to 50% of patients report not readily seeking treatment for pelvic floor disorders (PFDs). The increase in phone applications (apps) for health care information is an opportunity to increase access to care.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate content and function of apps for patients with PFDs.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Apps were screened using PFD-related search terms. Included apps were on the Apple store, in English, and targeted patients with PFDs. The primary outcome was app quality based on the APPLICATIONS scoring system (scored 0-16). Secondary outcomes included professional medical involvement, iTunes rating details, the presence of a voiding/bowel diary, tracking of diet, pain/symptoms, exercise, and medication, graphing or social functions, reminders, disease information, and decision support. Data was reported with descriptive statistics (medians (ranges) and n (percentages).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight hundred forty apps were identified and 83 were analyzed. The top 3 PFD categories represented were defecatory dysfunction (29), overactive bladder (28), and stress incontinence (27). The median APPLICATIONS score was 7 (3-12). Most apps (78%) were developed without professional medical involvement. Most apps were free, while the remainder ranged from $1.99 to $4.99. No app had all features. Twenty-five apps (30%) included a voiding diary, 33 (40%) had a bowel diary, 27 (33%) included exercise tracking, and 44 (53%) had reminder systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most apps had reasonable, but not high, functionality. Current apps provide varying degrees of overall utility, with limited disease information and decision support. Further collaboration with medical providers in app development would support better integration of clinician and patient needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001541","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Up to 50% of patients report not readily seeking treatment for pelvic floor disorders (PFDs). The increase in phone applications (apps) for health care information is an opportunity to increase access to care.

Objective: The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate content and function of apps for patients with PFDs.

Study design: Apps were screened using PFD-related search terms. Included apps were on the Apple store, in English, and targeted patients with PFDs. The primary outcome was app quality based on the APPLICATIONS scoring system (scored 0-16). Secondary outcomes included professional medical involvement, iTunes rating details, the presence of a voiding/bowel diary, tracking of diet, pain/symptoms, exercise, and medication, graphing or social functions, reminders, disease information, and decision support. Data was reported with descriptive statistics (medians (ranges) and n (percentages).

Results: Eight hundred forty apps were identified and 83 were analyzed. The top 3 PFD categories represented were defecatory dysfunction (29), overactive bladder (28), and stress incontinence (27). The median APPLICATIONS score was 7 (3-12). Most apps (78%) were developed without professional medical involvement. Most apps were free, while the remainder ranged from $1.99 to $4.99. No app had all features. Twenty-five apps (30%) included a voiding diary, 33 (40%) had a bowel diary, 27 (33%) included exercise tracking, and 44 (53%) had reminder systems.

Conclusions: Most apps had reasonable, but not high, functionality. Current apps provide varying degrees of overall utility, with limited disease information and decision support. Further collaboration with medical providers in app development would support better integration of clinician and patient needs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
治疗盆底障碍的手机应用程序
重要性:多达 50% 的患者表示不愿意寻求盆底疾病 (PFD) 的治疗。医疗保健信息手机应用程序(App)的增加为提高医疗服务的可及性提供了机会:研究旨在系统评估针对盆底疾病患者的应用程序的内容和功能:研究设计:使用与 PFD 相关的搜索词对应用程序进行筛选。研究设计:使用与 PFD 相关的搜索词对应用程序进行筛选,纳入的应用程序必须是苹果商店中的英文版,且以 PFD 患者为目标用户。主要结果是基于APPLICATIONS评分系统(0-16分)的应用程序质量。次要结果包括专业医疗参与、iTunes 评分详情、是否有排空/排便日记、饮食、疼痛/症状、运动和药物追踪、图表或社交功能、提醒、疾病信息和决策支持。数据报告采用描述性统计(中位数(范围)和n(百分比)):结果:共确定了 840 个应用程序,对其中 83 个进行了分析。排便障碍(29 个)、膀胱过度活跃(28 个)和压力性尿失禁(27 个)是排便障碍的三大类别。应用程序得分的中位数为 7(3-12 分)。大多数应用程序(78%)是在没有专业医疗人员参与的情况下开发的。大多数应用程序都是免费的,其余的从 1.99 美元到 4.99 美元不等。没有一款应用程序具备所有功能。25款应用程序(30%)包含排尿日记,33款(40%)包含排便日记,27款(33%)包含运动跟踪,44款(53%)有提醒系统:结论:大多数应用程序具有合理的功能,但并不强大。目前的应用程序提供了不同程度的整体实用性,但疾病信息和决策支持有限。进一步与医疗服务提供商合作开发应用程序将有助于更好地整合临床医生和患者的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Development and Validation of a Simulation Model for Ureteral Stent Placement. Implementing a Digital Platform for Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections. Unexpected Pathology During Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair in an Urban Population. Green Cystoscopy: Does Minimizing the Use of Drapes Increase Infection Rates? Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trial: KIM Sling With Reusable Trocars Versus TVT Exact Sling.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1