BackgroundPoor information privacy practices have been identified in health apps. Medical app accreditation programs offer a mechanism for assuring the quality of apps; however, little is known about their ability to control information privacy risks. We aimed to assess the extent to which already-certified apps complied with data protection principles mandated by the largest national accreditation program.MethodsCross-sectional, systematic, 6-month assessment of 79 apps certified as clinically safe and trustworthy by the UK NHS Health Apps Library. Protocol-based testing was used to characterize personal information collection, local-device storage and information transmission. Observed information handling practices were compared against privacy policy commitments.ResultsThe study revealed that 89 % (n = 70/79) of apps transmitted information to online services. No app encrypted personal information stored locally. Furthermore, 66 % (23/35) of apps sending identifying information over the Internet did not use encryption and 20 % (7/35) did not have a privacy policy. Overall, 67 % (53/79) of apps had some form of privacy policy. No app collected or transmitted information that a policy explicitly stated it would not; however, 78 % (38/49) of information-transmitting apps with a policy did not describe the nature of personal information included in transmissions. Four apps sent both identifying and health information without encryption. Although the study was not designed to examine data handling after transmission to online services, security problems appeared to place users at risk of data theft in two cases.ConclusionsSystematic gaps in compliance with data protection principles in accredited health apps question whether certification programs relying substantially on developer disclosures can provide a trusted resource for patients and clinicians. Accreditation programs should, as a minimum, provide consistent and reliable warnings about possible threats and, ideally, require publishers to rectify vulnerabilities before apps are released.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0444-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundApps have been enthusiastically adopted by the general public. They are increasingly recognized by policy-makers as a potential medium for supporting self-management of long-term conditions. We assessed the degree to which current smartphone and tablet apps for people with asthma offer content and tools of appropriate quality to support asthma self-management.MethodsWe adapted systematic review methodology to the assessment of apps. We identified English-language asthma apps for all ages through a systematic search of official app stores. We systematically assessed app content using criteria derived from international guidelines and systematic review of strategies for asthma self-management. We covered three domains: comprehensiveness of asthma information, consistency of advice with evidence and compliance with health information best practice principles.ResultsWe identified 103 apps for asthma in English, of which 56 were sources of information about the condition and 47 provided tools for the management of asthma. No apps offered both types of functionality. Only three information apps approached our definition of comprehensiveness of information about asthma. No apps provided advice on lay management of acute asthma that included details of appropriate reliever medication use. In 32 of 72 instances, apps made unequivocal recommendations about strategies for asthma control or prophylaxis that were unsupported by current evidence. Although 90% of apps stated a clear purpose, compliance with other best practice principles for health information was variable. Contact details were located for 55%, funding source for 18% and confidentiality policy for 17%.ConclusionsNo apps for people with asthma combined reliable, comprehensive information about the condition with supportive tools for self-management. Healthcare professionals considering recommending apps to patients as part of asthma self-management should exercise caution, recognizing that some apps like calculators may be unsafe; that no current app will meet the need of every patient; and that ways of working must be adapted if apps are to be introduced, supported and sustained in routine care. Policy-makers need to consider the potential role for assurance mechanisms in relation to apps. There remains much to be done if apps are to find broad use in clinical practice; clinicians cannot recommend tools that are inaccurate, unsafe or lack an evidence base.

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.

Key Points Question Do the privacy policies of popular smartphone applications (apps) for depression and smoking cessation describe accurately whether data will be processed by commercial third parties? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 36 top-ranked apps for depression and smoking cessation available in public app stores, 29 transmitted data to services provided by Facebook or Google, but only 12 accurately disclosed this in a privacy policy. Meaning Health care professionals prescribing apps should not rely on disclosures about data sharing in health app privacy policies but should reasonably assume that data will be shared with commercial entities whose own privacy practices have been questioned and, if possible, should consider only apps with data transmission behaviors that have been subject to direct scrutiny.

The use of data generated passively by personal electronic devices, such as smartphones, to measure human function in health and disease has generated significant research interest. Particularly in psychiatry, objective, continuous quantitation using patients’ own devices may result in clinically useful markers that can be used to refine diagnostic processes, tailor treatment choices, improve condition monitoring for actionable outcomes, such as early signs of relapse, and develop new intervention models. If a principal goal for digital phenotyping is clinical improvement, research needs to attend now to factors that will help or hinder future clinical adoption. We identify four opportunities for research directed toward this goal: exploring intermediate outcomes and underlying disease mechanisms; focusing on purposes that are likely to be used in clinical practice; anticipating quality and safety barriers to adoption; and exploring the potential for digital personalized medicine arising from the integration of digital phenotyping and digital interventions. Clinical relevance also means explicitly addressing consumer needs, preferences, and acceptability as the ultimate users of digital phenotyping interventions. There is a risk that, without such considerations, the potential benefits of digital phenotyping are delayed or not realized because approaches that are feasible for application in healthcare, and the evidence required to support clinical commissioning, are not developed. Practical steps to accelerate this research agenda include the further development of digital phenotyping technology platforms focusing on scalability and equity, establishing shared data repositories and common data standards, and fostering multidisciplinary collaborations between clinical stakeholders (including patients), computer scientists, and researchers.

BackgroundInterest in mobile apps that support long-term conditions such as asthma is matched by recognition of the importance of the quality and safety of apps intended for patient use. We assessed how changes over a 2-year period affected the clinical suitability of apps providing self-management information and tools for people with asthma by updating a review first performed in 2011.MethodsSystematic content assessment of all apps for iOS and Android examining the comprehensiveness of asthma information, consistency with the evidence base for asthma self-management and adherence to best practice principles for trustworthy content, comparing the quality of apps available in 2011 to those released since.ResultsBetween 2011 and 2013, numbers of asthma apps more than doubled from 93 to 191, despite withdrawal of 25% (n = 23/93) of existing apps. Newer apps were no more likely than those available in 2011 to include comprehensive information, such as the use of action plans, or offer guidance consistent with evidence; 13% (n = 19/147) of all apps, and 39% (n = 9/23) of those intended to manage acute asthma, recommended self-care procedures unsupported by evidence. Despite increases in the numbers of apps targeting specific skills, such as acute asthma management (n = 12 to 23) and inhaler technique (from n = 2 to 12), the proportion consistent with guidelines (17%, n = 4/23) and inhaler instructions (25%, n = 3/12), respectively, was low, and most apps provided only either basic information about asthma (50%, n = 75/147) or simple diary functions (24%, n = 36/147).ConclusionsIn addition to persisting questions about clinical quality and safety, dynamic aspects of app turnover and feature evolution affect the suitability of asthma apps for use in routine care. The findings underline the need for coordinated quality assurance processes that can adapt to changing clinical and information governance-related risks, ensure compliance with the evidence base and reflect local variations in clinical practice. It is unclear if substantial clinical benefits can be realized from a landscape dominated by low quality generic information apps and tools that do not adhere to accepted medical practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0303-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundMedical apps are widely available, increasingly used by patients and clinicians, and are being actively promoted for use in routine care. However, there is little systematic evidence exploring possible risks associated with apps intended for patient use. Because self-medication errors are a recognized source of avoidable harm, apps that affect medication use, such as dose calculators, deserve particular scrutiny. We explored the accuracy and clinical suitability of apps for calculating medication doses, focusing on insulin calculators for patients with diabetes as a representative use for a prevalent long-term condition.MethodsWe performed a systematic assessment of all English-language rapid/short-acting insulin dose calculators available for iOS and Android.ResultsSearches identified 46 calculators that performed simple mathematical operations using planned carbohydrate intake and measured blood glucose. While 59% (n = 27/46) of apps included a clinical disclaimer, only 30% (n = 14/46) documented the calculation formula. 91% (n = 42/46) lacked numeric input validation, 59% (n = 27/46) allowed calculation when one or more values were missing, 48% (n = 22/46) used ambiguous terminology, 9% (n = 4/46) did not use adequate numeric precision and 4% (n = 2/46) did not store parameters faithfully. 67% (n = 31/46) of apps carried a risk of inappropriate output dose recommendation that either violated basic clinical assumptions (48%, n = 22/46) or did not match a stated formula (14%, n = 3/21) or correctly update in response to changing user inputs (37%, n = 17/46). Only one app, for iOS, was issue-free according to our criteria. No significant differences were observed in issue prevalence by payment model or platform.ConclusionsThe majority of insulin dose calculator apps provide no protection against, and may actively contribute to, incorrect or inappropriate dose recommendations that put current users at risk of both catastrophic overdose and more subtle harms resulting from suboptimal glucose control. Healthcare professionals should exercise substantial caution in recommending unregulated dose calculators to patients and address app safety as part of self-management education. The prevalence of errors attributable to incorrect interpretation of medical principles underlines the importance of clinical input during app design. Systemic issues affecting the safety and suitability of higher-risk apps may require coordinated surveillance and action at national and international levels involving regulators, health agencies and app stores.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0314-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background and objectives: Fast peritoneal membrane transport status may be due to inflammation or increased peritoneal membrane surface area. We evaluated the ability of peritoneal protein clearance (Pcl) to distinguish fast peritoneal membrane transport status as a consequence of peritoneal membrane inflammation and assess its impact on patient survival.Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Patients who initiated peritoneal dialysis at our center since January 1998 and had a baseline peritoneal equilibration test, measurement of dialysis adequacy, and 24-h dialysate Pcl were included. Demography, comorbidities, and biochemical data were prospectively collected. Follow-up was until death or the end of the period studied. Multivariate regression analysis identified factors that were associated with Pcl. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify factors that were associated with survival.Results: A total of 192 patients (56% men, mean age 54.3 ؎ 15.3; 32% with diabetes) were included. On univariate analysis, Pcl was negatively correlated with serum albumin and positively correlated with age, dialysate/plasma creatinine ratio (D/Pcr), the presence of peripheral vascular disease, and urine volume. On multivariate analysis, serum albumin, D/Pcr, urine volume, and peripheral vascular disease remained significant. Predictors of mortality were age, comorbidity grade, and Pcl but not D/Pcr.Conclusions: In this cohort, peritoneal transport status no longer predicted survival, whereas Pcl remained a predictor. Increased large-pore protein loss may reflect the severity of underlying cardiovascular disease, portending a poor prognosis for these patients.