0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Multinational landscape of health app policy: toward regulatory consensus on digital health

      editorial

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Due to its enormous capacity for benefit, harm, and cost, health care is among the most tightly regulated industries in the world. But with the rise of smartphones, an explosion of direct-to-consumer mobile health applications has challenged the role of centralized gatekeepers. As interest in health apps continue to climb, national regulatory bodies have turned their attention toward strategies to protect consumers from apps that mine and sell health data, recommend unsafe practices, or simply do not work as advertised. To characterize the current state and outlook of these efforts, Essén and colleagues map the nascent landscape of national health app policies and raise several considerations for cross-border collaboration. Strategies to increase transparency, organize app marketplaces, and monitor existing apps are needed to ensure that the global wave of new digital health tools fulfills its promise to improve health at scale.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Using science to sell apps: Evaluation of mental health app store quality claims

          Despite the emergence of curated app libraries for mental health apps, personal searches by consumers remain a common method for discovering apps. App store descriptions therefore represent a key channel to inform consumer choice. This study examined the claims invoked through these app store descriptions, the extent to which scientific language is used to support such claims, and the corresponding evidence in the literature. Google Play and iTunes were searched for apps related to depression, self-harm, substance use, anxiety, and schizophrenia. The descriptions of the top-ranking, consumer-focused apps were coded to identify claims of acceptability and effectiveness, and forms of supporting statement. For apps which invoked ostensibly scientific principles, a literature search was conducted to assess their credibility. Seventy-three apps were coded, and the majority (64%) claimed effectiveness at diagnosing a mental health condition, or improving symptoms, mood or self-management. Scientific language was most frequently used to support these effectiveness claims (44%), although this included techniques not validated by literature searches (8/24 = 33%). Two apps described low-quality, primary evidence to support the use of the app. Only one app included a citation to published literature. A minority of apps (14%) described design or development involving lived experience, and none referenced certification or accreditation processes such as app libraries. Scientific language was the most frequently invoked form of support for use of mental health apps; however, high-quality evidence is not commonly described. Improved knowledge translation strategies may improve the adoption of other strategies, such as certification or lived experience co-design.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diagnostic inaccuracy of smartphone applications for melanoma detection.

            To measure the performance of smartphone applications that evaluate photographs of skin lesions and provide the user with feedback about the likelihood of malignancy. Case-control diagnostic accuracy study. Academic dermatology department. PARTICIPANTS AND MATERIALS: Digital clinical images of pigmented cutaneous lesions (60 melanoma and 128 benign control lesions) with a histologic diagnosis rendered by a board-certified dermatopathologist, obtained before biopsy from patients undergoing lesion removal as a part of routine care. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 4 smartphone applications designed to aid nonclinician users in determining whether their skin lesion is benign or malignant. Sensitivity of the 4 tested applications ranged from 6.8% to 98.1%; specificity, 30.4% to 93.7%; positive predictive value, 33.3% to 42.1%; and negative predictive value, 65.4% to 97.0%. The highest sensitivity for melanoma diagnosis was observed for an application that sends the image directly to a board-certified dermatologist for analysis; the lowest, for applications that use automated algorithms to analyze images. The performance of smartphone applications in assessing melanoma risk is highly variable, and 3 of 4 smartphone applications incorrectly classified 30% or more of melanomas as unconcerning. Reliance on these applications, which are not subject to regulatory oversight, in lieu of medical consultation can delay the diagnosis of melanoma and harm users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Health Apps and Health Policy

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                james_diao@hms.harvard.edu
                Journal
                NPJ Digit Med
                NPJ Digit Med
                NPJ Digital Medicine
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2398-6352
                11 May 2022
                11 May 2022
                2022
                : 5
                : 61
                Affiliations
                GRID grid.38142.3c, ISNI 000000041936754X, Harvard Medical School, ; Boston, MA USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6134-4339
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8050-9402
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7517-2291
                Article
                604
                10.1038/s41746-022-00604-x
                9095713
                35545663
                5dbd6f17-283d-4198-8d54-30f0ea7c809f
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 12 March 2022
                : 15 April 2022
                Categories
                Editorial
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                health policy,technology
                health policy, technology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content444

                Cited by6

                Most referenced authors113