Clinical effectiveness, feasibility, acceptability, and usability of mobile health applications for epilepsy: A systematic review

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Epilepsia Pub Date : 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1111/epi.18288
Evelyn Gotlieb, Shahab Marzoughi, Churl-Su Kwon, Michael Harmon, Maren Kimura, Ashley Truesdale, Chloe Sweetnam, Céline Soudant, Margaret H. Downes, Neil A. Busis, Benjamin R. Kummer, Nathalie Jetté
{"title":"Clinical effectiveness, feasibility, acceptability, and usability of mobile health applications for epilepsy: A systematic review","authors":"Evelyn Gotlieb,&nbsp;Shahab Marzoughi,&nbsp;Churl-Su Kwon,&nbsp;Michael Harmon,&nbsp;Maren Kimura,&nbsp;Ashley Truesdale,&nbsp;Chloe Sweetnam,&nbsp;Céline Soudant,&nbsp;Margaret H. Downes,&nbsp;Neil A. Busis,&nbsp;Benjamin R. Kummer,&nbsp;Nathalie Jetté","doi":"10.1111/epi.18288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Mobile applications are widely used in epilepsy, although their impact on clinical effectiveness (CE) and their feasibility, acceptability, and usability (FAU) remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review investigating CE and FAU of epilepsy mobile applications using MEDLINE and Embase from database inception to June 21, 2024. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting standards. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019134848). In duplicate, we determined study quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOQAS) and the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Checklist (to determine eligibility for inclusion), risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and usability study quality using the 15-point Silva scale. We identified 8953 studies, of which 20 were included. Twelve (60.0%) addressed CE, nine (45.0%) acceptability, five (25.0%) usability, and eight (40.0%) feasibility. Five (25.0%) evaluated CE and FAU. Studies comprised prospective cohort (<i>n</i> = 9, 45.0%), pilot (<i>n</i> = 3, 15.0%), randomized controlled trial (<i>n</i> = 7, 35.0%), and pre/post (<i>n</i> = 1, 5.0%) designs. Most apps were used for self-management or to enhance education or communication between patients and providers. Cohort studies demonstrated fair quality (median NOQAS score = 5, interquartile range [IQR] = 5.0–5.8), whereas of seven randomized controlled trials, four (57.1%) had some concern for bias. Usability studies demonstrated high quality (median Silva score = 10, IQR = 10–11). Apps were predominantly intended for patient use (<i>n</i> = 9, 75.0%). Symptom reporting and medication management were the most common app targets in both CE and FAU studies (<i>n</i> = 8, 66.7%; <i>n</i> = 9, 69.2%), although FAU studies more frequently used monitoring or tracking (<i>n</i> = 10, 76.9%) and reminder setting (<i>n</i> = 10, 76.9%) than CE apps (<i>n</i> = 7, 58.3%). Investigations of application use most commonly studied CE and patient-facing apps. Additional high-quality evidence is necessary to evaluate the CE and FAU of app use in epilepsy to work toward the standardization of FAU metrics and development of implementation guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":11768,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsia","volume":"66 5","pages":"1349-1373"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/epi.18288","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/epi.18288","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mobile applications are widely used in epilepsy, although their impact on clinical effectiveness (CE) and their feasibility, acceptability, and usability (FAU) remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review investigating CE and FAU of epilepsy mobile applications using MEDLINE and Embase from database inception to June 21, 2024. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting standards. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019134848). In duplicate, we determined study quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOQAS) and the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Checklist (to determine eligibility for inclusion), risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and usability study quality using the 15-point Silva scale. We identified 8953 studies, of which 20 were included. Twelve (60.0%) addressed CE, nine (45.0%) acceptability, five (25.0%) usability, and eight (40.0%) feasibility. Five (25.0%) evaluated CE and FAU. Studies comprised prospective cohort (n = 9, 45.0%), pilot (n = 3, 15.0%), randomized controlled trial (n = 7, 35.0%), and pre/post (n = 1, 5.0%) designs. Most apps were used for self-management or to enhance education or communication between patients and providers. Cohort studies demonstrated fair quality (median NOQAS score = 5, interquartile range [IQR] = 5.0–5.8), whereas of seven randomized controlled trials, four (57.1%) had some concern for bias. Usability studies demonstrated high quality (median Silva score = 10, IQR = 10–11). Apps were predominantly intended for patient use (n = 9, 75.0%). Symptom reporting and medication management were the most common app targets in both CE and FAU studies (n = 8, 66.7%; n = 9, 69.2%), although FAU studies more frequently used monitoring or tracking (n = 10, 76.9%) and reminder setting (n = 10, 76.9%) than CE apps (n = 7, 58.3%). Investigations of application use most commonly studied CE and patient-facing apps. Additional high-quality evidence is necessary to evaluate the CE and FAU of app use in epilepsy to work toward the standardization of FAU metrics and development of implementation guidelines.

Abstract Image

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
癫痫移动健康应用程序的临床有效性、可行性、可接受性和可用性:系统综述。
尽管移动应用程序对临床有效性(CE)及其可行性、可接受性和可用性(FAU)的影响尚不清楚,但它在癫痫中得到了广泛应用。从数据库建立到2024年6月21日,我们使用MEDLINE和Embase对癫痫移动应用程序的CE和FAU进行了系统评价。我们遵循系统评价和元分析报告标准的首选报告项目。该协议在PROSPERO上注册(CRD42019134848)。我们使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华质量评估量表(NOQAS)和乔安娜·布里格斯关键评估清单(以确定纳入资格)确定研究质量,使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具确定偏倚风险,使用15分席尔瓦量表确定可用性研究质量。我们确定了8953项研究,其中20项被纳入。12个(60.0%)涉及CE, 9个(45.0%)可接受性,5个(25.0%)可用性,8个(40.0%)可行性。5例(25.0%)评估CE和FAU。研究包括前瞻性队列(n = 9, 45.0%)、试点(n = 3, 15.0%)、随机对照试验(n = 7, 35.0%)和前后(n = 1, 5.0%)设计。大多数应用程序用于自我管理或加强患者和提供者之间的教育或沟通。队列研究显示质量相当(NOQAS评分中位数= 5,四分位间距[IQR] = 5.0-5.8),而在7项随机对照试验中,4项(57.1%)存在偏倚问题。可用性研究证明了高质量(Silva得分中位数= 10,IQR = 10-11)。应用程序主要用于患者使用(n = 9, 75.0%)。在CE和FAU研究中,症状报告和药物管理是最常见的应用程序目标(n = 8, 66.7%;n = 9, 69.2%),尽管FAU研究更频繁地使用监测或跟踪(n = 10, 76.9%)和提醒设置(n = 10, 76.9%)比CE应用(n = 7, 58.3%)。应用程序使用的调查最常研究CE和面向患者的应用程序。需要更多的高质量证据来评估癫痫应用程序使用的CE和FAU,以实现FAU指标的标准化和制定实施指南。
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
Epilepsia
Epilepsia 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Epilepsia is the leading, authoritative source for innovative clinical and basic science research for all aspects of epilepsy and seizures. In addition, Epilepsia publishes critical reviews, opinion pieces, and guidelines that foster understanding and aim to improve the diagnosis and treatment of people with seizures and epilepsy.
期刊最新文献
One year of seizure freedom reduces premature death in people with epilepsy in rural China: A 10-year cohort study. Stiripentol: Unpublished results from the first phase 2 clinical trial in Lennox-Gastaut syndrome conducted in the early 1990s. Persons with epilepsy and their caregivers understand the definition of ictal impairment of consciousness. Seizure-type-specific disruption of hypercapnic cardioventilatory responses in epilepsy models. Rhythms in longitudinal thalamic recordings are linked to seizure risk.
×
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:604180095
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