Medication Adherence Apps: Review and Content Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is an expensive and damaging problem for patients and health care providers. Patients adhere to only 50% of drugs prescribed for chronic diseases in developed nations. Digital health has paved the way for innovative smartphone solutions to tackle this challenge. However, despite numerous apps available claiming to improve adherence, a thorough review of adherence apps has not been carried out to date. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to (1) review medication adherence apps available in app repositories in terms of their evidence base, medical professional involvement in development, and strategies used to facilitate behavior change and improve adherence and (2) provide a system of classification for these apps. METHODS: In April 2015, relevant medication adherence apps were identified by searching the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store using a combination of relevant search terms. Data extracted included app store source, app price, documentation of health care professional (HCP) involvement during app development, and evidence base for each respective app. Free apps were downloaded to explore the strategies used to promote medication adherence. Testing involved a standardized medication regimen of three reminders over a 4-hour period. Nonadherence features designed to enhance user experience were also documented. RESULTS: The app repository search identified a total of 5881 apps. Of these, 805 fulfilled the inclusion criteria initially and were tested. Furthermore, 681 apps were further analyzed for data extraction. Of these, 420 apps were free for testing, 58 were inaccessible and 203 required payment. Of the 420 free apps, 57 apps were developed with HCP involvement and an evidence base was identified in only 4 apps. Of the paid apps, 9 apps had HCP involvement, 1 app had a documented evidence base, and 1 app had both. In addition, 18 inaccessible apps were produced with HCP involvement, whereas 2 apps had a documented evidence base. The 420 free apps were further analyzed to identify strategies used to improve medication adherence. This identified three broad categories of adherence strategies, reminder, behavioral, and educational. A total of 250 apps utilized a single method, 149 apps used two methods, and only 22 apps utilized all three methods. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically review all available medication adherence apps on the two largest app repositories. The results demonstrate a concerning lack of HCP involvement in app development and evidence base of effectiveness. More collaboration is required between relevant stakeholders to ensure development of high quality and relevant adherence apps with well-powered and robust clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of these interventions. A sound evidence base will encourage the adoption of effective adherence apps, and thus improve patient welfare in the process.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,071 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,040 | 0,026 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».