识别和评估患者管理化脓性汗腺炎的移动和网络应用程序:应用程序商店的系统搜索和内容分析。

IF 6.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Caroline Glatzel, Tassilo Dege, Bernadette Glatzel, Matthias Goebeler, Dagmar Presser, Astrid Schmieder
{"title":"识别和评估患者管理化脓性汗腺炎的移动和网络应用程序:应用程序商店的系统搜索和内容分析。","authors":"Caroline Glatzel, Tassilo Dege, Bernadette Glatzel, Matthias Goebeler, Dagmar Presser, Astrid Schmieder","doi":"10.2196/69030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by painful nodules, abscesses, and fistulas in intertriginous sites. It significantly impacts patients' quality of life. Early diagnosis and timely treatment are essential for disease control. Recurrent flares, suboptimal therapies, and prolonged misdiagnosis place a significant burden on both patients and health care systems.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to identify mobile health apps (MHAs) for patients with HS and evaluate their quality through assessments by both patients and physicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two reviewers searched for mobile and web apps for HS, including those only available in German or English. Apps with advertising or non-patient-centered content and apps related to trials or conferences were excluded. Two apps met the criteria and were evaluated by 20 physicians and 27 patients using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), user version of the MARS (uMARS), German Mobile App Usability Questionnaire, and technology affinity tools (Affinity for Technology Interaction Scale and Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 2 apps for managing HS that met the inclusion criteria-the HSR-Patients app and the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app-from an initial pool of 29 proposed apps that included many nonmedical, non-HS-specific, and non-patient-centered apps. Patients rated the quality of the HSR-Patients app significantly higher than physicians (MARS: mean 3.01, SD 0.60 vs. uMARS: mean 3.53, SD 0.69; P=.009). In contrast, ratings for the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app did not differ significantly (physicians: mean 2.81, SD 0.55; patients: mean 2.72, SD 0.79; P=.69). Usability, assessed with the German Mobile App Usability Questionnaire, showed no significant difference between physicians and patients for either app. For the HSR-Patients app, physicians and patients rated usability at 4.37 (SD 0.86) and 4.72 (SD 1.21; P=.27), respectively. For the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app, physicians and patients rated usability at 3.88 (SD 0.77) and 3.38 (SD 1.35; P=.11), respectively. Patients showed a significantly higher general affinity for technology than physicians, as measured by the Affinity for Technology Interaction Scale (physicians: mean 3.62, SD 0.61; patients: mean 4.38, SD 1.30; P=.01). However, there was no significant difference in affinity for technology specifically when using mobile devices, as assessed by the Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire (physicians: mean 4.83, SD 0.25; patients: mean 4.69, SD 0.72; P=.41).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This evaluation highlights the limited availability of high-quality, HS management-specific MHAs and underscores the need for more targeted digital tools. Differences in evaluations between patients and physicians were evident, with patients focusing on usability and practical guidance, while physicians prioritized content and usability. Neither the HSR-Patients app or the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app demonstrated sufficient potential for long-term use, indicating the need for participatory development that includes all stakeholders.</p>","PeriodicalId":14756,"journal":{"name":"JMIR mHealth and uHealth","volume":"13 ","pages":"e69030"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12400124/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying and Evaluating Mobile and Web Apps for Patients to Manage Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Caroline Glatzel, Tassilo Dege, Bernadette Glatzel, Matthias Goebeler, Dagmar Presser, Astrid Schmieder\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/69030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by painful nodules, abscesses, and fistulas in intertriginous sites. It significantly impacts patients' quality of life. Early diagnosis and timely treatment are essential for disease control. Recurrent flares, suboptimal therapies, and prolonged misdiagnosis place a significant burden on both patients and health care systems.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to identify mobile health apps (MHAs) for patients with HS and evaluate their quality through assessments by both patients and physicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two reviewers searched for mobile and web apps for HS, including those only available in German or English. Apps with advertising or non-patient-centered content and apps related to trials or conferences were excluded. Two apps met the criteria and were evaluated by 20 physicians and 27 patients using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), user version of the MARS (uMARS), German Mobile App Usability Questionnaire, and technology affinity tools (Affinity for Technology Interaction Scale and Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 2 apps for managing HS that met the inclusion criteria-the HSR-Patients app and the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app-from an initial pool of 29 proposed apps that included many nonmedical, non-HS-specific, and non-patient-centered apps. Patients rated the quality of the HSR-Patients app significantly higher than physicians (MARS: mean 3.01, SD 0.60 vs. uMARS: mean 3.53, SD 0.69; P=.009). In contrast, ratings for the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app did not differ significantly (physicians: mean 2.81, SD 0.55; patients: mean 2.72, SD 0.79; P=.69). Usability, assessed with the German Mobile App Usability Questionnaire, showed no significant difference between physicians and patients for either app. For the HSR-Patients app, physicians and patients rated usability at 4.37 (SD 0.86) and 4.72 (SD 1.21; P=.27), respectively. For the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app, physicians and patients rated usability at 3.88 (SD 0.77) and 3.38 (SD 1.35; P=.11), respectively. Patients showed a significantly higher general affinity for technology than physicians, as measured by the Affinity for Technology Interaction Scale (physicians: mean 3.62, SD 0.61; patients: mean 4.38, SD 1.30; P=.01). However, there was no significant difference in affinity for technology specifically when using mobile devices, as assessed by the Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire (physicians: mean 4.83, SD 0.25; patients: mean 4.69, SD 0.72; P=.41).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This evaluation highlights the limited availability of high-quality, HS management-specific MHAs and underscores the need for more targeted digital tools. Differences in evaluations between patients and physicians were evident, with patients focusing on usability and practical guidance, while physicians prioritized content and usability. Neither the HSR-Patients app or the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app demonstrated sufficient potential for long-term use, indicating the need for participatory development that includes all stakeholders.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14756,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR mHealth and uHealth\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"e69030\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12400124/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR mHealth and uHealth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/69030\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR mHealth and uHealth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/69030","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:化脓性汗腺炎(HS)是一种慢性炎症性皮肤病,其特征是在三节间部位出现疼痛的结节、脓肿和瘘。它显著影响患者的生活质量。早期诊断和及时治疗对疾病控制至关重要。复发性发作、不理想的治疗和长期的误诊给患者和卫生保健系统带来了沉重的负担。目的:我们旨在确定HS患者的移动健康应用程序(MHAs),并通过患者和医生的评估来评估其质量。方法:两名审稿人检索HS的移动和网页应用程序,包括只有德语或英语的应用程序。包含广告或非以患者为中心内容的应用程序以及与试验或会议相关的应用程序被排除在外。两个应用程序符合标准,由20名医生和27名患者使用移动应用评定量表(MARS)、用户版MARS (uMARS)、德国移动应用可用性问卷和技术亲和力工具(技术互动亲和力量表和移动设备熟练度问卷)进行评估。结果:我们从最初的29个应用程序中确定了2个符合纳入标准的管理HS的应用程序——hsr -患者应用程序和ehsf -化脓性汗腺炎应用程序,这些应用程序包括许多非医疗、非HS特异性和非以患者为中心的应用程序。患者对HSR-Patients应用程序质量的评价显著高于医生(MARS:平均3.01,SD 0.60; uMARS:平均3.53,SD 0.69; P= 0.009)。相比之下,ehsf -化脓性汗腺炎应用程序的评分没有显著差异(医生:平均2.81,SD 0.55;患者:平均2.72,SD 0.79; P= 0.69)。可用性,通过德国移动应用程序可用性问卷评估,显示医生和患者对两款应用程序的可用性评分均无显著差异。对于HSR-Patients应用程序,医生和患者对可用性的评分分别为4.37 (SD 0.86)和4.72 (SD 1.21; P= 0.27)。对于ehsf -化脓性汗腺炎应用程序,医生和患者的可用性评分分别为3.88 (SD 0.77)和3.38 (SD 1.35; P= 0.11)。通过技术互动亲和力量表(affinity for technology Interaction Scale)测量,患者对技术的总体亲和力明显高于医生(医生:平均3.62,SD 0.61;患者:平均4.38,SD 1.30; P= 0.01)。然而,通过移动设备熟练度问卷(mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire)评估,在使用移动设备时,对技术的亲和力没有显著差异(医生:平均4.83,SD 0.25;患者:平均4.69,SD 0.72; P= 0.41)。结论:该评估强调了高质量、HS管理特定mha的可用性有限,并强调需要更有针对性的数字工具。患者和医生之间的评价差异很明显,患者关注可用性和实用指导,而医生优先考虑内容和可用性。HSR-Patients应用程序或ehsf -化脓性汗腺炎应用程序均未显示出足够的长期使用潜力,这表明需要包括所有利益相关者在内的参与式开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Identifying and Evaluating Mobile and Web Apps for Patients to Manage Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.

Identifying and Evaluating Mobile and Web Apps for Patients to Manage Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.

Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by painful nodules, abscesses, and fistulas in intertriginous sites. It significantly impacts patients' quality of life. Early diagnosis and timely treatment are essential for disease control. Recurrent flares, suboptimal therapies, and prolonged misdiagnosis place a significant burden on both patients and health care systems.

Objective: We aimed to identify mobile health apps (MHAs) for patients with HS and evaluate their quality through assessments by both patients and physicians.

Methods: Two reviewers searched for mobile and web apps for HS, including those only available in German or English. Apps with advertising or non-patient-centered content and apps related to trials or conferences were excluded. Two apps met the criteria and were evaluated by 20 physicians and 27 patients using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), user version of the MARS (uMARS), German Mobile App Usability Questionnaire, and technology affinity tools (Affinity for Technology Interaction Scale and Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire).

Results: We identified 2 apps for managing HS that met the inclusion criteria-the HSR-Patients app and the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app-from an initial pool of 29 proposed apps that included many nonmedical, non-HS-specific, and non-patient-centered apps. Patients rated the quality of the HSR-Patients app significantly higher than physicians (MARS: mean 3.01, SD 0.60 vs. uMARS: mean 3.53, SD 0.69; P=.009). In contrast, ratings for the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app did not differ significantly (physicians: mean 2.81, SD 0.55; patients: mean 2.72, SD 0.79; P=.69). Usability, assessed with the German Mobile App Usability Questionnaire, showed no significant difference between physicians and patients for either app. For the HSR-Patients app, physicians and patients rated usability at 4.37 (SD 0.86) and 4.72 (SD 1.21; P=.27), respectively. For the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app, physicians and patients rated usability at 3.88 (SD 0.77) and 3.38 (SD 1.35; P=.11), respectively. Patients showed a significantly higher general affinity for technology than physicians, as measured by the Affinity for Technology Interaction Scale (physicians: mean 3.62, SD 0.61; patients: mean 4.38, SD 1.30; P=.01). However, there was no significant difference in affinity for technology specifically when using mobile devices, as assessed by the Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire (physicians: mean 4.83, SD 0.25; patients: mean 4.69, SD 0.72; P=.41).

Conclusions: This evaluation highlights the limited availability of high-quality, HS management-specific MHAs and underscores the need for more targeted digital tools. Differences in evaluations between patients and physicians were evident, with patients focusing on usability and practical guidance, while physicians prioritized content and usability. Neither the HSR-Patients app or the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app demonstrated sufficient potential for long-term use, indicating the need for participatory development that includes all stakeholders.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
JMIR mHealth and uHealth Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
159
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: JMIR mHealth and uHealth (JMU, ISSN 2291-5222) is a spin-off journal of JMIR, the leading eHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175). JMIR mHealth and uHealth is indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), and in June 2017 received a stunning inaugural Impact Factor of 4.636. The journal focusses on health and biomedical applications in mobile and tablet computing, pervasive and ubiquitous computing, wearable computing and domotics. JMIR mHealth and uHealth publishes since 2013 and was the first mhealth journal in Pubmed. It publishes even faster and has a broader scope with including papers which are more technical or more formative/developmental than what would be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信