Smartphone pregnancy apps: systematic analysis of features, scientific guidance, commercialization, and user perception.

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Pub Date : 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1186/s12884-024-06959-1
Michael Nissen, Shih-Yuan Huang, Katharina M Jäger, Madeleine Flaucher, Adriana Titzmann, Hannah Bleher, Constanza A Pontones, Hanna Huebner, Nina Danzberger, Peter A Fasching, Bjoern M Eskofier, Heike Leutheuser
{"title":"Smartphone pregnancy apps: systematic analysis of features, scientific guidance, commercialization, and user perception.","authors":"Michael Nissen, Shih-Yuan Huang, Katharina M Jäger, Madeleine Flaucher, Adriana Titzmann, Hannah Bleher, Constanza A Pontones, Hanna Huebner, Nina Danzberger, Peter A Fasching, Bjoern M Eskofier, Heike Leutheuser","doi":"10.1186/s12884-024-06959-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Over 50% of pregnant women use pregnancy applications (apps). Some app s lack credibility, information accuracy, and evidence-based clinical advice, containing potentially harmful functionality. Previous studies have only conducted a limited analysis of pregnancy app functionalities, expert involvement/evidence-based content, used commercialization techniques, and user perception.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the keyword \"pregnancy\" to scrape (automatically extract) apps and app information from Apple App Store and Google Play. Unique functionalities were derived from app descriptions and user reviews. App descriptions were screened for evidence-based content and expert involvement, and apps were subsequently analyzed in detail. Apps were opened and searched for used commercialization techniques, such as advertisements or affiliate marketing. Automated text analysis (natural language processing) was used on app reviews to assess users' perception of evidence-based content/expert involvement and commercialization techniques.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 495 apps were scraped. 226 remained after applying exclusion criteria. Out of these, 36 represented 97%/88% of the total market share (Apple App Store/Google Play), and were thus considered for review. Overall, 49 distinct functionalities were identified, out of which 6 were previously unreported. Functionalities for fetal kick movement counting were found. All apps are commercial. Only 15 apps mention the involvement of medical experts. 10.3% of two-stars user reviews include commercial topics, and 0.6% of one-/two-/three-/five stars user reviews include references to scientific content accuracy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Problematic features and inadequate advice continue to be present in pregnancy apps. App developers should adopt an evidence-based development approach and avoid implementing as many features as possible, potentially at the expense of their quality or over-complication (\"feature creep\"). Financial incentives, such as grant programs, could support adequate content quality. Caregivers play a key role in pregnant individuals' decision-making, should be aware of potential dangers, and could guide them to trustworthy apps.</p>","PeriodicalId":9033,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","volume":"24 1","pages":"782"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11587608/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06959-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Over 50% of pregnant women use pregnancy applications (apps). Some app s lack credibility, information accuracy, and evidence-based clinical advice, containing potentially harmful functionality. Previous studies have only conducted a limited analysis of pregnancy app functionalities, expert involvement/evidence-based content, used commercialization techniques, and user perception.

Methods: We used the keyword "pregnancy" to scrape (automatically extract) apps and app information from Apple App Store and Google Play. Unique functionalities were derived from app descriptions and user reviews. App descriptions were screened for evidence-based content and expert involvement, and apps were subsequently analyzed in detail. Apps were opened and searched for used commercialization techniques, such as advertisements or affiliate marketing. Automated text analysis (natural language processing) was used on app reviews to assess users' perception of evidence-based content/expert involvement and commercialization techniques.

Results: In total, 495 apps were scraped. 226 remained after applying exclusion criteria. Out of these, 36 represented 97%/88% of the total market share (Apple App Store/Google Play), and were thus considered for review. Overall, 49 distinct functionalities were identified, out of which 6 were previously unreported. Functionalities for fetal kick movement counting were found. All apps are commercial. Only 15 apps mention the involvement of medical experts. 10.3% of two-stars user reviews include commercial topics, and 0.6% of one-/two-/three-/five stars user reviews include references to scientific content accuracy.

Conclusion: Problematic features and inadequate advice continue to be present in pregnancy apps. App developers should adopt an evidence-based development approach and avoid implementing as many features as possible, potentially at the expense of their quality or over-complication ("feature creep"). Financial incentives, such as grant programs, could support adequate content quality. Caregivers play a key role in pregnant individuals' decision-making, should be aware of potential dangers, and could guide them to trustworthy apps.

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
智能手机怀孕应用程序:功能、科学指导、商业化和用户感知的系统分析。
背景:超过 50% 的孕妇使用孕期应用程序(App)。有些应用程序缺乏可信度、信息准确性和循证临床建议,包含潜在的有害功能。以往的研究仅对怀孕应用程序的功能、专家参与/基于证据的内容、使用的商业化技术和用户感知进行了有限的分析:方法:我们使用关键词 "怀孕 "从苹果应用商店和谷歌应用商店抓取(自动提取)应用程序和应用程序信息。从应用程序的描述和用户评论中得出其独特的功能。我们筛选了应用程序说明中的循证内容和专家参与情况,随后对应用程序进行了详细分析。打开应用程序并搜索其使用的商业化技术,如广告或联盟营销。对应用程序评论进行自动文本分析(自然语言处理),以评估用户对循证内容/专家参与和商业化技术的看法:结果:共搜索到 495 个应用程序。应用排除标准后,剩余 226 个。其中,36 款占总市场份额的 97%/88%(苹果 App Store/Google Play),因此被视为审查对象。总体而言,共发现了 49 项不同的功能,其中 6 项是以前未曾报道过的。还发现了胎儿踢腿运动计数功能。所有应用程序均为商业应用程序。只有 15 款应用程序提到了医学专家的参与。10.3%的二星级用户评论包含商业主题,0.6%的一星级/二星级/三星级/五星级用户评论提及科学内容的准确性:结论:怀孕应用程序中仍然存在有问题的功能和不适当的建议。应用程序开发人员应采用循证开发方法,避免尽可能多地使用功能,以免影响质量或过度复杂("功能爬升")。补助金计划等经济激励措施可为提高内容质量提供支持。护理人员在孕妇的决策过程中起着关键作用,他们应了解潜在的危险,并引导孕妇选择值得信赖的应用程序。
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
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
845
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. The journal welcomes submissions on the biomedical aspects of pregnancy, breastfeeding, labor, maternal health, maternity care, trends and sociological aspects of pregnancy and childbirth.
期刊最新文献
Differences in maternal and perinatal outcomes between Dutch and non-Western women in a midwife-led care setting: a retrospective cohort study. Self-monitoring blood pressure in pregnancy: evaluation of women's experiences of the BUMP trials. Ultrasound diagnosis of first trimester umbilical cord entanglement in monochorionic monoamniotic twins - case report and review of the literature. Effect of pregnancy intention on completion of maternity continuum of care in Sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clean delivery kit use in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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