Madison Kasoff, Leael Alishahian, Justin Gimoto, Adi Steinhart, Cara L Grimes, Dominique Malacarne Pape
{"title":"治疗盆底障碍的手机应用程序","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.