Health Apps for Combating COVID-19: Descriptive Review and Taxonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile phone apps have been leveraged to combat the spread of COVID-19. However, little is known about these technologies' characteristics, technical features, and various applications in health care when responding to this public health crisis. The lack of understanding has led developers and governments to make poor choices about apps' designs, which resulted in creating less useful apps that are overall less appealing to consumers due to their technical flaws. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to identify, analyze, and categorize health apps related to COVID-19 that are currently available for consumers in app stores; in particular, it focuses on exploring their key technical features and classifying the purposes that these apps were designed to serve. METHODS: A review of health apps was conducted using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The Apple Store and Google Play were searched between April 20 and September 11, 2020. An app was included if it was dedicated for this disease and was listed under the health and medical categories in these app stores. The descriptions of these apps were extracted from the apps' web pages and thematically analyzed via open coding to identify both their key technical features and overall purpose. The characteristics of the included apps were summarized and presented with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 298 health apps that were initially retrieved, 115 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 29 technical features were found in our sample of apps, which were then categorized into five key purposes of apps related to COVID-19. A total of 77 (67%) apps were developed by governments or national authorities and for the purpose of promoting users to track their personal health (9/29, 31%). Other purposes included raising awareness on how to combat COVID-19 (8/29, 27%), managing exposure to COVID-19 (6/29, 20%), monitoring health by health care professionals (5/29, 17%), and conducting research studies (1/29, 3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an overview and taxonomy of the health apps currently available in the market to combat COVID-19 based on their differences in basic technical features and purpose. As most of the apps were provided by governments or national authorities, it indicates the essential role these apps have as tools in public health crisis management. By involving most of the population in self-tracking their personal health and providing them with the technology to self-assess, the role of these apps is deemed to be a key driver for a participatory approach to curtail the spread of COVID-19. Further effort is required from researchers to evaluate these apps' effectiveness and from governmental organizations to increase public awareness of these digital solutions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".