Monitoring Symptoms of COVID-19: Review of Mobile Apps
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) apps have facilitated symptom monitoring of COVID-19 symptoms globally and have been used to share data with health care professionals and support disease prediction, prevention, management, diagnostics, and improvements in treatments and patient education. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to evaluate the quality and functionality of COVID-19 mHealth apps that support tracking acute and long-term symptoms of COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically reviewed commercially available mHealth apps for COVID-19 symptom monitoring by searching Google Play and Apple iTunes using search terms such as "COVID-19," "Coronavirus," and "COVID-19 and symptoms." All apps underwent three rounds of screening. The final apps were independently assessed using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), an informatics functionality scoring system, and the Center for Disease Control and World Health Organization symptom guidelines. The MARS is a 19-item standardized tool to evaluate the quality of mHealth apps on engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality. Functionality was quantified across the following criteria: inform, instruct, record (collect, share, evaluate, and intervene), display, guide, remind or alert, and communicate. Interrater reliability between the reviewers was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1017 mobile apps were reviewed, and 20 (2%) met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the 20 included apps (n=18, 90%) were designed to track acute COVID-19 symptoms, and only 2 (10%) addressed long-term symptoms. Overall, the apps scored high on quality, with an overall MARS rating of 3.89 out of 5, and the highest domain score for functionality (4.2). The most common functionality among all apps was the instruct function (n=19, 95%). The most common symptoms included in the apps for tracking were fever and dry cough (n=18, 90%), aches and pains (n=17, 85%), difficulty breathing (n=17, 85%), tiredness, sore throat, headache, loss of taste or smell (n=16, 80%), and diarrhea (n=15, 75%). Only 2 (10%) apps specifically tracked long-term symptoms of COVID-19. The top 4 rated apps overall were state-specific apps developed and deployed for public use. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, mHealth apps designed to monitor symptoms of COVID-19 were of high quality, but the majority of apps focused almost exclusively on acute symptoms. Future apps should also incorporate monitoring long-term symptoms of COVID-19 and evidence-based educational materials; they should also include a feature that would allow patients to communicate their symptoms to specific caregivers or their own health care team. App developers should also follow updated technical and clinical guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization.
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 | 0,005 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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 ».