Background Since the 2008 advent of the smartphone, more than 180 billion copies of apps have been downloaded from Apple App Store, with more than 2.6 million apps available for Android and 2.2 million apps available for iOS. Many violence prevention and response apps have been developed as part of this app proliferation. Objective This study aims to evaluate the prevalence and quality of freely available mobile phone apps targeting intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence (SV) prevention and response. Methods We conducted a systematic search of violence prevention and response mobile phone apps freely available in Apple App Store (iOS; March 2016) and Google Play Store (Android; July 2016). Search terms included violence prevention, sexual assault, domestic violence, intimate partner violence, sexual violence, forensic nursing, wife abuse, and rape. Apps were included for review if they were freely available, were available in English, and had a primary purpose of prevention of or response to SV or IPV regardless of app target end users. Results Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), we evaluated a total of 132 unique apps. The majority of included apps had a primary purpose of sharing information or resources. Included apps were of low-to-moderate quality, with the overall subjective quality mean for the reviewed apps being 2.65 (95% CI 2.58-2.72). Quality scores for each of the 5 MARS categories ranged from 2.80 (engagement) to 4.75 (functionality). An incidental but important finding of our review was the difficulty in searching for apps and the plethora of nonrelated apps that appear when searching for keywords such as “rape” and “domestic violence” that may be harmful to people seeking help. Conclusions Although there are a variety of mobile apps available designed to provide information or other services related to SV and IPV, they range greatly in quality. They are also challenging to find, given the current infrastructure of app store searches, keyword prioritization, and highlighting based on user rating. It is important for providers to be aware of these resources and be knowledgeable about how to review and recommend mobile phone apps to patients, when appropriate.
Introduction Alternate light sources (ALSs) are a tool used by forensic nurses to aid in the physical examination of patients. Prior research has shown some topical makeup products absorb alternate light similar to the absorption noted in bruises. Therefore, the purposes of this study were (a) to further examine the ALS findings of multiple brands and types of makeup products and (b) to compare the efficacy of three methods of makeup removal. Methods Fourteen makeup products were applied to the forearms of 100 healthy adult volunteers with varying skin tones and then assessed under white light, six alternate light wavelengths, and three color filters, producing 19 total wavelength-and-filter combinations. The results were recorded before and after removal procedures by forensic nurse examiners who were blinded to the removal method. A three-arm randomized controlled trial of makeup removal methods (soap and water, isopropyl alcohol swab, makeup removal wipe) was conducted with the participants. Results All 14 makeup products produced absorption in at least 10% of the observations. Fluorescence was observed in more than 10% of the observations for only two products. After product removal, four products continued to produce statistically significant absorption findings when viewed under an ALS. One product produced significant fluorescence after removal procedures. There were no statistically significant differences between the removal methods noted in any of these analyses. Conclusion Our findings support the importance of using alternate light as one component of a comprehensive forensic examination, including history taking and physical examination.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.