mHealth Apps in the Digital Marketplace for Pediatric Patients With Cancer: Systematic Search and Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The substantial increase in smartphone ownership has led to a rise in mobile health (mHealth) app use. Developing tailored features through mHealth apps creates a pathway to address the health care needs of pediatric patients with cancer and their families who have complex care needs. However, few apps are designed specifically to integrate with pediatric cancer care. Objective: This study reports a systematic search and analysis of mHealth apps available on the Apple App (iOS) and Google Play (Android) stores designed for pediatric cancer through a list of features that serve (1) patients, (2) caregivers, or (3) both audiences. Methods: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we reviewed apps for pediatric patients with cancer and caregivers available as of January 30, 2024. We searched the Apple App and Google Play stores with a list of keyword combinations focusing on pediatric cancer care. The inclusion criteria were (1) specifically apps targeted toward pediatric patients with cancer, their families, or both; (2) available in either app store; and (3) available in English. Apps were assessed using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). The MARS is a quality assessment for mHealth apps, including components of engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and informational quality (5-point Likert scale items-1: low and 5: high quality). Results: In total, 22 apps were identified and 17 of those apps were available on both platforms. The most popular features (n=12) were resource sharing, symptom tracking, reminders, care team connections, journaling, community support, medication tracking, data visualizations, and appointment tracking. Features and interfaces were designed for caregivers (n=9) more frequently than the patients (n=7) while a subset of apps created options for both users (n=6). A total of 16 apps received positive reviews (mean 4.4, SD 0.59; Min=3.1, Max=5.0). A small subset (n=3) achieved over 5000 downloads; however, the majority (n=15) had fewer than 500. More than half (n=12) of the apps were not available in English. Apps requested access to a range of device functionalities to operate (mean 2.72, SD 3.13; Min=0, Max=10). Out of 22, a total of 17 apps were publicly accessible. The mean MARS scores for the apps ranged from 1.71 (SD 0.75) to 4.33 (SD 0.82). Overall, apps scored high on functionality (mean 3.72, SD 0.54) but low on engagement (mean 3.02, SD 0.93). Conclusions: Our review highlights the promising yet underdeveloped potential of mHealth apps in pediatric oncology care, underscoring the need for more inclusive, comprehensive, and integrative digital health solutions. Future developments should actively involve key stakeholders from the pediatric oncology community, including patients, families, and health care professionals, to ensure the apps meet specific needs while addressing linguistic and cultural barriers.
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 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".