TY - JOUR
T1 - Patients’ and nephrologists’ evaluation of patient-facing smartphone apps for CKD
AU - Singh, Karandeep
AU - Diamantidis, Clarissa J.
AU - Ramani, Shreyas
AU - Bhavsar, Nrupen A.
AU - Mara, Peter
AU - Warner, Julia
AU - Rodriguez, Jorge
AU - Wang, Tianshi
AU - Wright-Nunes, Julie
N1 - Funding Information:
K.S.receivedsupportfromgrant5K12DK111011fromtheNational InstituteofDiabetes andDigestiveandKidneyDiseases.C.J.D.received support from grants K23 DK099385 and R01 DK93938 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. J.W.-N. received support from grants K23 DK097183 and R01 DK115844 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Funding Information:
We thank Srishti Agrawal for her assistance with reviews. K.S. received support fromgrant5K12DK111011 fromtheNational InstituteofDiabetes andDigestive andKidneyDiseases.C.J.D. received support from grants K23 DK099385 and R01 DK93938 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. J.W.-N. received support from grants K23 DK097183 and R01 DK115844 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The funding source had no role in the study design, conduct, analysis, or decision to submit the manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 by the American Society of Nephrology.
PY - 2019/4/5
Y1 - 2019/4/5
N2 - Background and objectives Many aspects of CKD management rely heavily on patient self-care, including medication and dietary adherence, self-monitoring of BP, and daily physical activity.Growing evidence suggests that incorporating smartphone-based applications can support self-care in CKD and chronic disease more generally. Design, setting, participants, & measurements We identified applications targeting patients with CKD by conducting a search of the US Apple App Store (iOS) and Google Play Store (Android) using the following four phrases: “kidneydisease,”“renal,”“dialysis,” and”kidney transplant.“Weconsidered thefirst 50 applications for each search term on each application store. We adapted a previously described framework for assessment of mobile health applications to account forkidneydisease-specific content areas andevaluatedapplications on their types of patient engagement, quality, usability, and safety. Engagement and quality were assessed by both a patient and a nephrologist, usabilitywas assessed by a patient, and safetywas assessed by a nephrologist.Overall, two patients with CKD and three nephrologists performed the evaluations.We examined pairwise correlations between patient, nephrologist, and consumer ratings of application quality. Results Our search strategy identified 174 unique applications on Android and 165 unique applications on iOS. After excluding applications thatwere not related to kidney disease,were not patient facing, orwere last updated before 2014, 12 Android-only applications, 11 iOS-only applications, and five dual-platform applications remained. Patient and nephrologist application quality ratings, assessed by the net promoter score, were not correlated (r=0.36; P=0.06). Consumer ratings on the application stores did not correlate with patient ratings of application quality (r=0.34; P=0.18). Conclusions Only a small subset of CKD applications was highly rated by both patients and nephrologists. Patients’ impressions of application quality are not directly linkedto consumer application ratings or nephrologist impressions.
AB - Background and objectives Many aspects of CKD management rely heavily on patient self-care, including medication and dietary adherence, self-monitoring of BP, and daily physical activity.Growing evidence suggests that incorporating smartphone-based applications can support self-care in CKD and chronic disease more generally. Design, setting, participants, & measurements We identified applications targeting patients with CKD by conducting a search of the US Apple App Store (iOS) and Google Play Store (Android) using the following four phrases: “kidneydisease,”“renal,”“dialysis,” and”kidney transplant.“Weconsidered thefirst 50 applications for each search term on each application store. We adapted a previously described framework for assessment of mobile health applications to account forkidneydisease-specific content areas andevaluatedapplications on their types of patient engagement, quality, usability, and safety. Engagement and quality were assessed by both a patient and a nephrologist, usabilitywas assessed by a patient, and safetywas assessed by a nephrologist.Overall, two patients with CKD and three nephrologists performed the evaluations.We examined pairwise correlations between patient, nephrologist, and consumer ratings of application quality. Results Our search strategy identified 174 unique applications on Android and 165 unique applications on iOS. After excluding applications thatwere not related to kidney disease,were not patient facing, orwere last updated before 2014, 12 Android-only applications, 11 iOS-only applications, and five dual-platform applications remained. Patient and nephrologist application quality ratings, assessed by the net promoter score, were not correlated (r=0.36; P=0.06). Consumer ratings on the application stores did not correlate with patient ratings of application quality (r=0.34; P=0.18). Conclusions Only a small subset of CKD applications was highly rated by both patients and nephrologists. Patients’ impressions of application quality are not directly linkedto consumer application ratings or nephrologist impressions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064473616&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064473616&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2215/CJN.10370818
DO - 10.2215/CJN.10370818
M3 - Article
C2 - 30898873
AN - SCOPUS:85064473616
SN - 1555-9041
VL - 14
SP - 523
EP - 529
JO - Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
JF - Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
IS - 4
ER -