Mobile Health Apps for Medical Emergencies: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile health apps are used to improve the quality of health care. These apps are changing the current scenario in health care, and their numbers are increasing. OBJECTIVE: We wanted to perform an analysis of the current status of mobile health technologies and apps for medical emergencies. We aimed to synthesize the existing body of knowledge to provide relevant insights for this topic. Moreover, we wanted to identify common threads and gaps to support new challenging, interesting, and relevant research directions. METHODS: We reviewed the main relevant papers and apps available in the literature. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was used in this review. The search criteria were adopted using systematic methods to select papers and apps. On one hand, a bibliographic review was carried out in different search databases to collect papers related to each application in the health emergency field using defined criteria. On the other hand, a review of mobile apps in two virtual storage platforms (Google Play Store and Apple App Store) was carried out. The Google Play Store and Apple App Store are related to the Android and iOS operating systems, respectively. RESULTS: In the literature review, 28 papers in the field of medical emergency were included. These studies were collected and selected according to established criteria. Moreover, we proposed a taxonomy using six groups of applications. In total, 324 mobile apps were found, with 192 identified in the Google Play Store and 132 identified in the Apple App Store. CONCLUSIONS: We found that all apps in the Google Play Store were free, and 73 apps in the Apple App Store were paid, with the price ranging from US $0.89 to US $5.99. Moreover, 39% (11/28) of the included studies were related to warning systems for emergency services and 21% (6/28) were associated with disaster management apps.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".