OBJECTIVE To assess adolescents' preferred mobile app features and to propose a framework for evaluating health-related mobile apps for adolescents. METHODS PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, HealthIT.gov , and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched in August 2017. Studies pertaining to app development, feasibility, or usability that reported preferred app features and rating criteria on mHealth (mobile health) apps intended for adolescents were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative synthesis was performed to develop themes reflecting best practices for evaluating the quality of mHealth apps for adolescents. Using a grounded theory approach, we constructed a theoretical framework of rating criteria that can be used to inform development of an evaluation tool for mHealth apps targeted to adolescents. RESULTS Thirteen articles were included. Most commonly preferred features include ability to track test results or self-management progress, connect to social media, and gain points or prizes through app gamification. Common rating criteria include degree of app customizability, ease of use, visual appeal, and interactivity. Five emerging dimensions were used in the theoretical framework: Technical Quality; Engagement; Support System; Autonomy; and Safety, Privacy, and Trust. CONCLUSIONS We found that adolescents prefer mHealth apps that are customizable, offer peer support through social media, sustain engagement via gamification, and support the ability to visualize health trends via simplified graphs. Findings may help in the development of mHealth apps that are preferred by adolescents, as well as the development of a quality evaluation tool for mHealth apps targeted to this population.

No abstract

Objectives Inherent treatment complexities for patients with both cancer and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) make these patients likely candidates for shared care between primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists. However, providers' views on the optimal model for care coordination between PCPs and oncologists in the context of both cancer and MCC are unclear. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the perceptions of PCPs and oncologists regarding barriers and facilitators to care coordination during the care of patients with cancer and MCC, and their opinions on what is needed to improve current care coordination strategies. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO for articles pertaining to PCPs' and oncologists' perspectives, experiences and needs regarding care coordination during the cancer care continuum, in the context of patients with cancer and MCC. Key findings A total of 22 articles were retained. From qualitative synthesis, three themes emerged regarding PCPs' and oncologists' perceived barriers to cancer care coordination: (1) limited findings of physicians' experiences in MCC care; (2) lack of defined provider roles in cancer care; and (3) lack of comprehensive information sharing, efficient communication methods and clear shared-care plans during care for cancer patients with MCC.Conclusions Results provide insights into providers' needs for navigating the complexities of cancer care coordination. Future studies should consider further investigating the needs of patients and multiple provider types for optimizing care coordination throughout the cancer care continuum.Provider perspective on oncology care coordination Natalie S. Hohmann et al.

Background Deep South states, particularly Alabama, experience disproportionately higher opioid prescribing rates versus national rates. Considering limited opioid use disorder (OUD) providers in this region, collaborative efforts between non-healthcare professionals is critical in mitigating overdose mortality. The Alabama Opioid Training Institute (OTI) was created in 2019 to empower community members to take action in combatting OUD in local regions. The OTI included: 1) eight full-day in-person conferences; and 2) an interactive mobile-enabled website (https://alabamaoti.org). This study assessed the impact of the OTI on influential community members’ knowledge, abilities, concerns, readiness, and intended actions regarding OUD and opioid overdose mitigation. Methods A one-group prospective cohort design was utilized. Alabama community leaders were purposively recruited via email, billboards, television, and social media advertisements. Outcome measures were assessed via online survey at baseline and post-conference, including: OUD knowledge (percent correct); abilities, concerns, and readiness regarding overdose management (7-point Likert-type scale, 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree); and actions/intended actions over the past/next 6 months (8-item index from 0 to 100% of the time). Conference satisfaction was also assessed. Changes were analyzed using McNemar or Marginal Homogeneity tests for categorical variables and two-sided paired t-tests for continuous variables (alpha = 0.05). Results Overall, 413 influential community members participated, most of whom were social workers (25.7%), female (86.4%), and White (65.7%). Community members’ OUD knowledge increased from mean [SD] 71.00% [13.32] pre-conference to 83.75% [9.91] post-conference (p < 0.001). Compared to pre-conference, mean [SD] ability scale scores increased (3.72 [1.55] to 5.15 [1.11], p < 0.001) and concerns decreased (3.19 [1.30] to 2.64 [1.17], p < 0.001) post-conference. Readiness was unchanged post-conference. Attendees’ intended OUD-mitigating actions in the next 6 months exceeded their self-reported actions in the past 6 months, and 92% recommended the OTI to others. Conclusions The Alabama OTI improved community leaders’ knowledge, abilities, and concerns regarding OUD management. Similar programs combining live education and interactive web-based platforms can be replicated in other states.