<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Patients' Perceptions of mHealth Apps:
Meta-Ethnographic Review of Qualitative Studies

Vananh Vo, Lola Auroy, Aline Sarradon-Eck

► To cite this version:

Vananh Vo, Lola Auroy, Aline Sarradon-Eck. Patients' Perceptions of mHealth Apps: Meta-Ethnographic Review of Qualitative Studies. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019, 7 (7), pp.e13817. 10.2196/13817. hal-02268578

HAL Id: hal-02268578

https://hal.science/hal-02268578v1

Submitted on 6 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Review

# Patients' Perceptions of mHealth Apps: Meta-Ethnographic Review of Qualitative Studies

VanAnh Vo<fnref n="1" />, MPH; Lola Auroy<fnref n="2" />, MPH; Aline Sarradon-Eck<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" />, MD, PhD

**Corresponding Author:**

Aline Sarradon-Eck, MD, PhD

Aix-Marseille Université, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale

27 Bd Jean Moulin
Marseille, 13385
France

Phone: 33 491 324 600

Email: aline.sarradon@inserm.fr

## Abstract

**Background:** Mobile phones and tablets are being increasingly integrated into the daily lives of many people worldwide. Mobile health (mHealth) apps have promising possibilities for optimizing health systems, improving care and health, and reducing health disparities. However, health care apps often seem to be underused after being downloaded.

**Objective:** The aim of this paper is to reach a better understanding of people's perceptions, beliefs, and experience of mHealth apps as well as to determine how highly they appreciate these tools.

**Methods:** A systematic review was carried out on qualitative studies published in English, on patients' perception of mHealth apps between January 2013 and June 2018. Data extracted from these articles were synthesized using a meta-ethnographic approach and an interpretative method.

**Results:** A total of 356 articles were selected for screening, and 43 of them met the inclusion criteria. Most of the articles included populations inhabiting developed countries and were published during the last 2 years, and most of the apps on which they focused were designed to help patients with chronic diseases. In this review, we present the strengths and weaknesses of using mHealth apps from the patients' point of view. The strengths can be categorized into two main aspects: engaging patients in their own health care and increasing patient empowerment. The weaknesses pointed out by the participants focus on four main topics: trustworthiness, appropriateness, personalization, and accessibility of these tools.

**Conclusions:** Although many of the patients included in the studies reviewed considered mHealth apps as a useful complementary tool, some major problems arise in their optimal use, including the need for more closely tailored designs, the cost of these apps, the validity of the information delivered, and security and privacy issues. Many of these issues could be resolved with more support from health providers. In addition, it would be worth developing standards to ensure that these apps provide patients accurate evidence-based information.

(JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019;7(7):e13817) doi: 10.2196/13817

## KEYWORDS

mHealth; apps; mobile apps; qualitative studies; systematic review; mobile phone

## Introduction

Mobile health (mHealth) technology has been widely adopted in many countries worldwide. Since smartphones are already

being used by many people, the latest technological innovations could improve access to health care, its delivery, and outcomes while decreasing the cost of health care by introducing evidence-based medical practices at the point of care and

<footnote n="1">¹Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Université Grenoble Alpes, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Sciences Po Grenoble, Pacte, Grenoble, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Aix-Marseille Université, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Marseille, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Institut Paoli-Calmettes, CanBios UMR1252, Marseille, France</footnote>
facilitating people's access to medical information and data [1]. The health care industry should make use of these advantages by creating mHealth apps to improve patient care, as mentioned in the World Health Organization's 2011 report [2]. The International Telecommunication Union estimates that by the end of 2018, there will be 107 mobile phone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants [3]. In addition to owning a mobile device, one-third of American smartphone users had downloaded health- and fitness-related apps onto their phones [4]. There are currently more than 100,000 health-related apps on the mobile phone app market, and according to the World Health Organization, 112 countries have reported the existence of at least one mHealth initiative [2].

mHealth apps are health apps available on a mobile device (a smartphone, tablet, or phablet), which can be used by both patients and their health care providers [5]. In a recent classification of mHealth apps, six main reasons were defined for using these apps: consulting medical information and references, communicating and/or sharing information, fulfilling a contextual need, obtaining educational tools, managing health professionals' activities, and facilitating health-related management of patients [6]. It was reported that the introduction of mHealth technology in the health care industry was a slow process but that it is capable of revolutionizing health care, especially in developing countries [7]. However, health care apps seem to be frequently underused after being downloaded [8].

Since mobile phones and tablets are being increasingly integrated into the everyday lives of many people worldwide, mHealth apps provide some appealing possibilities for optimizing health systems, improving care and promoting health, and reducing health disparities. mHealth apps can provide patients with medical and health-related information (both general and personalized information) and education, improve patients' compliance with treatment, and help them manage their own health (by conducting monitoring and diagnostic activities and improving their knowledge about their state of health or their illness). These promises explain why mHealth apps are frequently presented in the medical and public health literature as means of empowering patients [9].

Social scientists are more critical about the promise of increasing empowerment via mHealth. They have pointed out the existence of several moral and ethical issues associated with the emergence of these tools, such as the idea that the users of these technologies are ideal subjects who are responsible, self-disciplined, and motivated to improve their own health and mHealth's intrusion into users' private lives to record, survey, monitor, and discipline people [9]. Those taking a critical approach generally question whether mHealth practices may not be based on a rather consumerist vision of medicine in which patients' relationship with care may tend to be based on the consumption of services, and patient-consumer satisfaction becomes the main issue [10].

Therefore, given the fast development and integration of mHealth apps, it has become imperative to document people's

perceptions, beliefs, and experience of mHealth apps as well as to determine how highly they appreciate them. Several academic papers have addressed the relevance of mHealth apps and solutions for dealing with a specific disease or state [5,11-14]. Other studies have addressed the implementation of electronic health (eHealth) from the physician's perspective [15] or reviewed the evidence favoring the use of mobile technology by community health workers [16]. Based on a review of the quantitative surveys available in the literature, Azhar and Dhillon have modelled factors influencing the effective use of mHealth apps for self-care purposes [17]. However, since very little information is available on the patients' perspective, the aim of this study was to review the latest findings on how patients perceive mHealth apps in order to establish whether they agree that the idea of prescribing apps more widely is potentially feasible and desirable.

## Methods

### Search Strategy

Using relevant electronic databases (PubMed and Web of Science), a systematic search was performed on the literature. Key concepts such as perception and experience of mHealth were used to search the databases. The search was completed using a Medical Subject Heading keyword combination (eg, "telemedicine" AND "qualitative study") and other relevant keywords (Textbox 1).

The studies included in this review were related to mHealth or similar concepts (ie, telehealth apps, eHealth, or digital devices). Other terms and keywords used for this purpose were mobile health application(s) (or apps), eHealth app(s), telehealth devices, telehealth systems, and digital devices. Other keywords related to perception included in the search were experience, views, perspective, perception, feasibility, usability, review, utility, acceptability, evaluation, quantified self, and self-assessment. Keywords used to describe these apps were mHealth, mobile health, eHealth, telecare technologies, apps, mobile health, health technology, mobile applications, smartphones, digital health, telemedicine, and mobile apps. We restricted our focus to one main population of users, consisting of patients and potential patients. In order to determine what patients believe and how they perceive mHealth apps, we were particularly interested in original studies using a qualitative approach. Qualitative methods are potentially useful for understanding the individual needs of patients, their experiences, and their perception of mHealth apps [18]. Combinations of keywords including the term "qualitative study" were also used. In addition to the results obtained by searching databases and journals, other references to relevant articles were retrieved by performing a manual search. The studies included had to be in English and had to have been published within the last 5 years (from January 2013 to June 2018). The use of smartphones, especially iPhones and Androids, increased sharply to over 55% in 2013, along with the use of smartphone apps [19]. We therefore decided to focus on articles published within the last 5 years.
**Textbox 1.** Concept and keywords used in the search strategy.

**Device related:**

* Digital devices

* Medical app(s)

* mHealth

* mHealth app(s)

* Mobile health

* Smartphone app(s)

* Telecare technologies

* Telemedicine

**Perception/value/belief related:**

* Acceptability

* Evaluation

* Experience

* Feasibility

* Perception

* Perspectives

* Review

* Usability

* Utility

**Type of study:**

* Qualitative

* Qualitative study

* Literature review

**User:**

* Patients

* Physicians

* Providers

**Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria and Quality Assessment**

Since this research project focused on how mHealth apps can be used to improve patients' health care, any apps designed for the sole purpose of surveillance, location tracking, consultation, changing health behavior or health styles, or monitoring patient activity were excluded from the study. Since the focus was also restricted to patients, any studies focusing only on caregivers and other members of patients' social networks (such as spouses and parents) were excluded. Lastly, papers only reviewing an app's user interface and usability were not included unless they contributed to understanding patients' perception of mHealth app usage.

In view of the fast progress of technology, papers related solely to the use of short message service were not included because information, reminders, and other data are communicated via mHealth apps themselves. Studies on the wide range of digital

and other technological tools that are in development, such as FitBits, eHealth, telemonitoring devices, and telehealth systems, were also excluded in order to focus on mobile phone apps alone.

Since this review examines studies with qualitative designs, all relevant articles were finally double checked to make sure that they were in line with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research, after which no further studies were excluded.

**Data Extraction and Analysis**

The titles and abstracts were scanned to retrieve the keywords and combinations of keywords mentioned above in order to identify relevant articles and exclude those that were not within the scope of this review. The Methods section of each article was reviewed extensively to ensure that each study was based on a qualitative design. Full texts of relevant articles were retrieved and further reviewed to ensure that they matched the
objectives of this study, and any incomplete studies and studies in progress were excluded. To list the information presented in each paper, a table was drawn up on an Excel file, in which the following details were recorded: author, country involved in the study, study population and demographics, methods, disease/condition of interest, type and purpose of the app, results, themes, and time scheme.

Data were extracted from the articles included in this review using the meta-ethnographic framework and the corresponding interpretative method, which was designed for developing new interpretations via comparisons rather than aggregate findings [20]. The first step consisted of arranging these studies in chronological order and extracting the themes from the Results and Discussion sections. While continuing to analyze other

articles, we continued to keep an eye out for any emerging themes and include them in the ongoing analysis.

## Results

### Study Selection Procedure

The search conducted on the literature yielded 356 articles, 43 of which met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1). Three of these articles were included as the result of a manual search, while the other 40 articles were found by consulting databases. The reference numbers, the authors' names, the year of publication, the countries in which the studies were conducted, data on participants and their disease/condition, the methods used, the purpose of the app/device, and the most significant findings obtained in the studies selected are all presented in Table 1.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram of study selection.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Characteristics of the selected studies.</caption><thead><tr><td>Study</td><td>Country</td><td>Methods and participants</td><td>Disease/condition</td><td>Type of device/app</td><td>Purpose of device/app</td><td>Evaluation or expectation of app</td><td>Results</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hilliard et al, 2014 [21]</td><td>US</td><td>Questionnaires and telephone interviews; patients (n=16)</td><td>Cystic fibrosis</td><td>mHealth<sup>a</sup> app</td><td>Treatment adherence, disease management</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: access to information, socialization with the cystic fibrosis community, enhance communication with the health care team, support prescription refills<br/>Critiques: apps need to support those with cystic fibrosis, so they must be customized</td></tr><tr><td>Lubberding et al, 2015 [22]</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; patients (n=30)</td><td>Head and neck, breast cancer</td><td>eHealth<sup>b</sup> app</td><td>Monitors quality of life, gives advice/feedback and referrals</td><td>Expectation of eHealth app</td><td>Survivors determined that the eHealth app could be valuable for follow-up of cancer care by enabling them to monitor quality of life, personalized advice, and supportive care</td></tr><tr><td>Schnall et al, 2015 [23]</td><td>US</td><td>Focus groups; patients (n=50)</td><td>HIV</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Management and prevention of HIV (via adherence and retention of HIV medication)</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: empowers with the sense of autonomy and helped patients in their decision making, increases competency in self-management and sense of belonging and attachment</td></tr><tr><td>Schnall et al, 2015 [24]</td><td>US</td><td>Focus groups; providers (n=30) and patients (n=50)</td><td>HIV</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Monitoring and managing health of people living with HIV/AIDS, communication with providers</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: potentially useful, can facilitate delivery of care, and helps self-manage<br/>Critiques: security and privacy of app, need an app that is simple and easy to understand</td></tr><tr><td>Martinez, 2015 [25]</td><td>US</td><td>Focus groups; patients (n=27)</td><td>Chronic disease</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Patient attitudes toward mHealth technology to best tailor interventions to the needs of high-risk adults patients living with chronic disease</td><td>Expectation of eHealth app</td><td>Benefits: quick communication with health care providers, self-monitoring, self-management<br/>Critiques: confidentiality, security, expenses, customization, depersonalized interactions with medical community</td></tr><tr><td>Egsgaard et al, 2016 [26]</td><td>Denmark</td><td>Questionnaires and face-to-face interviews; patients (n=82)</td><td>Chronic pain</td><td>Tablet app</td><td>Identifying location of pain</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>App helped patients accurately describe and locate pain</td></tr><tr><td>Israni et al, 2016 [27]</td><td>US</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; patients (n=16)</td><td>Kidney</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Medication adherence</td><td>Expectation of app</td><td>Kidney transplant recipients responded positively on the potential app specifically for their condition<br/>Critiques: concern about technical details, need to include a few features for their condition</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Study</td><td>Country</td><td>Methods and participants</td><td>Disease/condition</td><td>Type of device/app</td><td>Purpose of device/app</td><td>Evaluation or expectation of app</td><td>Results</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Knight et al, 2016 [28]</td><td>Australia</td><td>Focus groups; patients (n=7)</td><td>Diabetes</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Diabetes bolus calculator for medication</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: useful self-management tool, improves usability<br/>Critiques: low health literacy</td></tr><tr><td>Lupton, 2016 [29]</td><td>Australia</td><td>Focus groups; patients (n=36)</td><td>Pregnancy</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Access to information on pregnancy</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: detailed and immediate information, entertainment, facilitates communication and socialization, reassuring</td></tr><tr><td>Puszkiewicz et al, 2016 [30]</td><td>UK</td><td>Questionnaires and telephone interviews; patients (n=11)</td><td>Cancer</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Promotion and management of physical activity in cancer survivors</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: helpful exercise instructions, did not cause any injuries or specific problems<br/>Critiques: need to be personalized for cancer survivors in terms of lifestyle and fitness needs, add in feature on socialization</td></tr><tr><td>Rosen et al, 2016 [31]</td><td>US</td><td>Focus groups; patients (n=22)</td><td>HIV</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Management for medication adherence and CD4/viral load counts</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: assists in adhering to drug regimen<br/>Critiques: notifications are too frequent, privacy and security, requests too much information</td></tr><tr><td>Simons et al, 2016 [32]</td><td>UK</td><td>Focus groups; providers (n=31), patients (n=9), and patients (n=19)</td><td>Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Collection of physiological/health-related data</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: improved and supported management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in between appointments, improved quality of appointments, supported self-management<br/>Critiques: burden on clinics, privacy and confidentiality issues of data, credibility and validity of sources</td></tr><tr><td>Young-Afat et al, 2016 [33]</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; providers (n=10) and patients (n=15)</td><td>Breast cancer</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Collection of patient-reported outcomes of breast cancer patients</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: potentially be in more control of health<br/>Critiques: does not provide anything more than medical team and internet</td></tr><tr><td>Bendixen et al, 2017 [34]</td><td>US</td><td>Focus groups; providers (n=11) and patients (n=16)</td><td>Brain and spinal cord anomalies</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Self-management</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: engaging, add value to daily life, accessible information, relevant to health needs<br/>Critiques: add feature for socialization and make it customizable</td></tr><tr><td>Cai et al, 2017 [35]</td><td>UK</td><td>Face-to-face interviews and focus groups; providers (n=21), patients (n=7), and patients (n=29)</td><td>Juvenile idiopathic arthritis</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Monitor symptoms and facilitate engagement with providers and patients</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: high levels of acceptability and usability, can improve health care and outcomes</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Study</td><td>Country</td><td>Methods and participants</td><td>Disease/condition</td><td>Type of device/app</td><td>Purpose of device/app</td><td>Evaluation or expectation of app</td><td>Results</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Fleming et al, 2017 [36]</td><td>US</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; patients (n=9)</td><td>Mental health</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Management of anxiety and depressive symptoms</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: facilitate engagement with patient and provider<br/>Critiques: app needs to be culturally tailored for young sexual minority men</td></tr><tr><td>Goetz et al, 2017 [37]</td><td>Germany</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; patients (n=30)</td><td>Pregnancy</td><td>eHealth and mHealth app</td><td>Patient engagement of clinical routine care/pregnancy care</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: facilitates socialization with other mothers and providers, easy and quick access to information, overall positive attitude toward using eHealth app<br/>Critiques: need for personalization, lack of scientifically validated sources, add feature for immediate feedback, data security</td></tr><tr><td>Hälleberg Nyman et al, 2017 [38]</td><td>Sweden</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; patients (n=28)</td><td>Prostate cancer</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Management, reporting of symptoms during radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer, symptom and risk assessment, alerts via SMS<sup>c</sup></td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: facilitates conversation between patient and provider</td></tr><tr><td>Huerta-Ramos et al, 2017 [39]</td><td>Spain</td><td>Focus group and face-to-face interviews; providers (n=13), family members (n=9), and patients (n=14)</td><td>Schizophrenia</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Empowerment, individualizing treatment and improving understanding of the illness</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: access to reliable information regarding disease and support, improved contact with clinicians, support of self-management of daily tasks and appointments<br/>Critiques: wanted more human contact with clinicians</td></tr><tr><td>Langius-Eklöf et al, 2017 [40]</td><td>Sweden</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; patients (n=66)</td><td>Prostate cancer</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Manage symptoms from radiotherapy for prostate cancer patients, risk assessment, alerts via SMS to providers, access to information</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: app is easy and efficient to use, increased security and well-being, improved self-management</td></tr><tr><td>Mistler et al, 2017 [41]</td><td>US</td><td>Questionnaire and face-to-face interviews; patients (n=13)</td><td>Mental health</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Self-management of and treatment</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: app is easy to use, relieved anxiety, sleep, and boredom</td></tr><tr><td>Nightingale et al, 2017 [42]</td><td>UK</td><td>Face-to-face interviews and focus groups; providers (n=7), parents (n=12), and patients (n=12)</td><td>Chronic kidney disease</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Management of treatment and dietary regiments, treatment adherence</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Expectation: accessible information, engaging/interactive and developmentally appropriate care-management app, endorsement from renal professionals, supplementary to professionals</td></tr><tr><td>Sebern et al, 2017 [43]</td><td>US</td><td>Focus groups; providers (n=7) and patients (n=8)</td><td>Heart failure</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Education and self-management, monitor symptoms and physical activity for patients of heart failure</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: facilitates self-management and communication<br/>Critiques: cost, overwhelming</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Study</td><td>Country</td><td>Methods and participants</td><td>Disease/condition</td><td>Type of device/app</td><td>Purpose of device/app</td><td>Evaluation or expectation of app</td><td>Results</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Velu et al, 2017 [44]</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Focus groups; providers (n=12) and patients (n=2)</td><td>Obstetric care</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Assess health risk of working pregnant women</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: accessible to practical and understandable information<br/>Critiques: extensive battery and memory use, notifications too frequent</td></tr><tr><td>Westergaard et al, 2017 [45]</td><td>US</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; patients (n=19)</td><td>HIV</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Medication adherence/management, monitor risk behaviors of patients with substance use and HIV</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: manage HIV care when busy or stressed, empowered them to support others, socialization</td></tr><tr><td>Webb et al, 2017 [46]</td><td>Australia</td><td>Questionnaires and phone interviews; patients (n=14)</td><td>Mental health</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Health and lifestyle screening tool</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: using app allowed participants to easily disclose sensitive issues raised in their consultation, participants felt more prepared and in control</td></tr><tr><td>Bauer et al, 2018 [47]</td><td>US</td><td>Questionnaires and face-to-face interviews; patients (n=17)</td><td>Mental health</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Symptom monitoring, self-management of mental health, connect with collaborative care program</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: facilitated discussion, supported relationship between patient and providers<br/>Critiques: lack of personalization, privacy and data security</td></tr><tr><td>Cordova et al, 2018 [48]</td><td>US</td><td>Questionnaires and face-to-face interviews and focus groups; patients (n=30)</td><td>HIV</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>HIV intervention app</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: facilitate adolescent-clinician communication, engaging and informative, interesting (culturally fitting to adolescents)<br/>Critiques: Confidentiality of risk assessment</td></tr><tr><td>Dahlberg et al, 2018 [49]</td><td>Sweden</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; patients (n=18)</td><td>Postoperative recovery</td><td>eHealth app</td><td>Assess and follow-up on postoperative recovery day after surgery</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: supportive, informative, facilitates communication, socialization</td></tr><tr><td>Desveaux et al, 2018 [50]</td><td>Canada</td><td>Telephone interviews; patients (n=16)</td><td>Type II diabetes</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Management and adherence to insulin for patients with type II diabetes</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: supports self-management, increase awareness<br/>Critiques: needs specific feedback, includes feature that acknowledges and recognizes successes, time consuming</td></tr><tr><td>Floch et al, 2018 [51]</td><td>European countries</td><td>Face-to-face interviews and netnography; providers (n=33), patients (n=17), and patients (n=24)</td><td>Cystic fibrosis</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Access to information, management treatment and follow-up</td><td>Expectation before use of the app and evaluation after use of the app</td><td>Critiques: needs an app that is easy to use, customizable, and will support self-management; takes into account the needs of individuals with cystic fibrosis and their busy personal life</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Study</td><td>Country</td><td>Methods and participants</td><td>Disease/condition</td><td>Type of device/app</td><td>Purpose of device/app</td><td>Evaluation or expectation of app</td><td>Results</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Giunti et al, 2018 [52]</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>Questionnaires, focus group, and face-to-face interviews; providers (n=12) and patients (n=12)</td><td>Multiple sclerosis</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Health promotion</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: realistic and positive feedback, minimize usability burdens<br/>Critiques: design, validity of information, need to emphasize that app is secondary to provider, need to be more engaging (eg, games), personalization, health literacy, privacy and data ownership, socialization</td></tr><tr><td>Grist et al, 2018 [53]</td><td>UK</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; patients (n=40)</td><td>Self-harm/mental health</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Management of those who self-injure by tracking moods, promoting mood changing activities, etc</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: helpful in managing their condition, privacy and discreteness of app, easy to use,<br/>Critiques: poor personalization</td></tr><tr><td>Hirshey et al, 2018 [54]</td><td>US</td><td>Questionnaire and face-to-face interviews; patients (n=12)</td><td>Atrial fibrillation</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Self-care and treatment adherence for patients with atrial fibrillation who are prescribed NOACs<sup>d</sup></td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: easy to use, supported self-care and treatment adherence, information accessible</td></tr><tr><td>Husted et al, 2018 [55]</td><td>Denmark</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; patients (n=20)</td><td>Type 1 diabetes mellitus</td><td>mHealth</td><td>Management/adherence</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: socialization, sense of competence safety, empowered to ask for help<br/>Critiques: lack of motivation for long-term app use</td></tr><tr><td>Jibb et al, 2018 [56]</td><td>Canada</td><td>Telephone interviews; patients (n=20)</td><td>Cancer</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Pain management support</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: supported self-management, engaging, facilitates discussion with provider<br/>Critiques: notifications too frequent, technical problems</td></tr><tr><td>Morrissey et al, 2018 [57]</td><td>Ireland</td><td>Focus groups; patients (n=24)</td><td>Hypertension</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Medication adherence, management of hypertension</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: motivates engagement with physician and self-management<br/>Critiques: using an app meant acknowledgment of the disease/condition or failure of memory, app is too challenging to use, app should include medical care in case of emergency, data regulation, cost of tools that is needed to use the app, burden of reminders</td></tr><tr><td>Riis et al, 2018 [58]</td><td>Denmark</td><td>Questionnaires and face-to-face interviews; patients (n=15)</td><td>Lower back pain</td><td>eHealth app</td><td>Access to information and advice for those with lower back pain</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: self-management, informative<br/>Critiques: difficult to navigate, people prefer to speak to provide, need support from providers to use app, information should be presented comprehensively and succinctly, customization</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Study</td><td>Country</td><td>Methods and participants</td><td>Disease/condition</td><td>Type of device/app</td><td>Purpose of device/app</td><td>Evaluation or expectation of app</td><td>Results</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Shorey et al, 2018 [59]</td><td>Singapore</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; patients (n=17)</td><td>Pregnancy</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Access to health care information for postnatal care</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: convenient, empowering, made providers more accessible, socialization, emotionally supported<br/>Critiques: technical issues, extend duration of use, provide more information</td></tr><tr><td>Switsers et al, 2018 [60]</td><td>Belgium</td><td>Focus groups; patients (n=16)</td><td>Bipolar disorder</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Self-management of bipolar disorder</td><td>Perception of mobile health apps prior to usage</td><td>Benefits: self-management, informative, socialization<br/>Critiques: customization, frequency of feedbacks</td></tr><tr><td>Waite-Jones et al, 2018 [61]</td><td>UK</td><td>Focus group and face-to-face interviews; providers (n=8), parents (n=8), and patients (n=9)</td><td>Juvenile arthritis</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Self-management of juvenile arthritis, access to information and self-management strategies</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: facilitates self-management, informative<br/>Critiques: customization, security, add more functions to app (notifications, mindfulness/relaxation techniques, gamification), provide age/gender relevant information, security, cost</td></tr><tr><td>Anstey Watkins et al, 2018 [62]</td><td>South Africa</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; providers (n=43) and patients (n=113)</td><td>Chronic diseases</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Information and service regarding chronic disease, pregnancy</td><td>Expectations prior to app use</td><td>Benefits: facilitated management of treatment, accessible information<br/>Critiques: limited functions on their phones, cost</td></tr><tr><td>Zhu et al, 2018 [63]</td><td>China</td><td>Face-to-face interviews; patients (n=13)</td><td>Breast cancer</td><td>mHealth app</td><td>Access to education/information on breast cancer, facilitating communication with peers and providers, symptom management</td><td>Evaluation after use of app</td><td>Benefits: accessible information, facilitates management of condition, empowering in confidence and emotional well-being, easy and convenient to use<br/>Critiques: technical difficulties, make language succinct and comprehensible, information app provides should be updated regularly, quick feedback</td></tr></tbody></table>

In 31 studies, the participants were all patients, whereas in 12 studies, the participants included both patients and providers. All 43 articles discussed patients' opinions about including patient-centered mHealth apps or eHealth apps in their mobile phones. The aim of 37 of the 43 articles was to report patients' assessment of an app, while 5 articles included either patients' expectations or their perception of an app prior to its use, and one study included both their expectations and assessments.

Most of the articles reviewed included populations inhabiting developed countries, apart from one that focused on a developing country (South Africa). Most of these qualitative studies focused on the United States [21,23-25,27,31,34,36,41,43,45,47,48,54] and the United Kingdom [30,32,35,42,53,61]. Other countries included were

the Netherlands [22,33,44], Denmark [26,55,58], Sweden [38,40,49], Australia [28,29,46], Canada [50,56], South Africa [62], Singapore [59], China [63], Germany [37], Ireland [57], Belgium [60], Spain [39], and Switzerland [52]. One paper included populations originating from seven European countries [51]. Although all the articles selected had been published during the last 5 years, about 70% of them were published more recently, during the last 2 years (2018: n=17; 2017: n=12). In addition, 8 articles were published in 2016, 4 articles were published in 2015, and 1 article was published in 2014.

Most of the apps under consideration were tailored to deal with chronic diseases: cancer [22,30,33,38,40,56,63]; HIV [23,24,31,45,48]; diabetes [28,50,55]; hypertension and cardiovascular diseases [43,54,57]; chronic kidney disease

<footnote><sup>a</sup>mHealth: mobile health.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>eHealth: electronic health.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup>SMS: short message service.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup>NOAC: Nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant.</footnote>
[27,42]; cystic fibrosis [21,51]; chronic pain [26,58]; juvenile
arthritis [35,61]; brain and spinal cord anomalies [34]; multiple
sclerosis [52]; chronic illnesses, in general [25,62]; and mental
health disorders [32,36,39,41,46,47,53,60]. Other apps were
specific to pregnancy/obstetric care [29,37,44,59], and one was
for postoperative care [49]. Since almost all the studies'
objectives focused on chronic diseases/conditions, the views
and expectations of patient users were related to apps designed
for the purpose of providing support, including giving access
to information, promoting interventions, promoting compliance
with treatment, assisting with the management of treatment or
disease, and facilitating discussions.

This article discusses the main strengths and weaknesses of using mHealth apps from the patients’ point of view. The strengths mentioned can be categorized into two main aspects: patients’ engagement and their empowerment. The four main weaknesses to which the subjects objected were the apps’ lack of trustworthiness, appropriateness, personalization, and accessibility (Textbox 2).

Increasing Patient Engagement

Improving the Accessibility to Information

Apps are frequently used to make information accessible to
users. In many cases, the apps under consideration here included
information about a specific disease or condition or the
medication available, to help patients handle their situation.
Other apps were designed to assist patients by explaining their
medication and medical treatment regimens. For the more

educational apps, patients expressed their appreciation of the
possibility of increasing their knowledge about health topics
related to their disease or condition. However, some patients,
such as cancer survivors, do not want more information and
advice than they have already received at the hospital, because
receiving more information might increase their anxiety [22].

Facilitating Two-Way Communication With Health Care
Providers

Patients described mHealth apps as tools facilitating discussions with their providers. Making it possible to communicate easily with providers seems to be one of the great promises of mHealth [25]; some tools include a function that enables patients to contact their providers to ask questions or express concerns. For example, young individuals with diabetes who were interviewed by Husted et al [55] said they had experienced greater continuity in their patient-health care provider relationships and were more highly motivated to improve their self-management of diabetes, since their health care providers immediately responded to the questions they asked in the chat room. Some of the patients who were able to use a mobile phone app efficiently stated that these tools enhanced their experience of the health care services [38]. One patient reported that they made it possible to personalize their messages to their provider or health care professional and receive useful responses. The mobile phone device was described as a tool for patients to have a “two-way dialogue” with their health care professionals, making it “a security line and [...] a link to someone who was caring for you and being in control of the situation” [38].

<table><caption>Textbox 2. Summary of the emerging themes.</caption>
   <thead>
    <tr>
     <td>
      Strengths mentioned by patients:
     </td>
    </tr>
   </thead>
   <tbody>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Engaging patients more strongly
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Improving the accessibility of information
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Facilitating two-way communication with health care providers
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Peer support
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Increasing patient empowerment
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Facilitating self-management
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Gaining greater control and autonomy
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      Weaknesses mentioned by patients:
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Concerns of trustworthiness
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Scientific validity
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Technical validity
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Appropriateness as an essential quality
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Relevance to specific diseases and conditions
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Cultural and user appropriateness
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        The need for greater personalization
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
     <td>
      <ul>
       <li>
        Accessibility issues
       </li>
      </ul>
     </td>
    </tr>
   </tbody>
  </table>
Patients also mentioned that these tools make for pleasant participation on the part of both users and health care professionals. They also described it as “passive receipt of care,” which was readily accepted by patients. With this type of care, they were able to accept and “resign themselves to receiving care without taking up the possibility to engage in active participation” [38].

Patients also felt that with the knowledge they had acquired, they were able to address topics they previously thought to be unimportant or irrelevant. The new information they received about what to bring into discussions with providers may enhance patients’ engagement with their providers. For example, patients using an app to describe their pain found that this helped them collaborate and interact with their physicians more effectively than using verbal descriptions and physical gestures. In addition, patients prefer gender-specific 3D body charts giving a “detail[ed] and realistic representation of the body” [26]. Patients described this body chart app as a “tool to facilitate communication of pain,” which is likely to “lead to improvements in pain communication, and thus facilitate clinical reasoning and treatment strategies” [26]. This will therefore help providers make more accurate assessments and more appropriate treatment plans for their patients.

However, it is worth noting that although the patients interviewed felt they had become more engaged in self-management owing to the use of these apps, they stressed the fact that apps should be used only as a complementary tool. Although mHealth apps can change the dynamics of patient-provider relationships by providing relevant information for making assessments, diagnoses, prescribing treatment, and so forth, patients prefer to use them simply as tools for facilitating these relationships and not for replacing them. Users believe apps to be a positive addition to the clinical process only, as one participant in the study by Simons et al [32] said, it “adds to what’s there already…not if it’s used as an excuse to see people less.” Apps could also be used to fill the gap between two doctors’ follow-up sessions [59]. On the other hand, some elderly patients fear that mHealth may lead to more depersonalized interactions with their doctors [25].

## Peer Support

Not only were patients able to engage with their providers more effectively, but they also stated that some apps facilitated conversation with other people who had undergone similar experiences, via forums or chat rooms. Some apps also enabled patients to interact more easily with caregivers and other members of their social network. By facilitating exchanges between patients and other individuals, these apps enhance patient socialization by alleviating their social isolation and providing social support. Providing peer-to-peer support by sharing feelings, practical knowledge, and experience was found to be the main benefit of apps with a chat room for young people with diabetes [55]. It has been stressed that the process of socialization achieved by chatting with other people who are experiencing a similar situation is one of the most helpful aspects of an educational app for new parents during the postnatal period [59]. The users of this app were parents of newborn infants who found it comforting that they were able

to link up with other new parents who were “linkable” and “going through the same things,” which results in parents providing answers that are directly relevant to the question [59]. However, not everyone is comfortable chatting on social networks. Some patients, especially those with cystic fibrosis, fear that comparing oneself with other people may lead to negative feelings or discouragement [21]. On the whole, mHealth apps can play a social role by improving patient self-management of their disease-related and other health-related issues [23].

## Increasing Patient Empowerment

### Facilitating Self-Management

Many patients approve of apps that can be used for self-monitoring and self-management of their health [25]. In addition, it is worth noting that patients who were high engagers in self-management described the use of mHealth apps as beneficial and not a barrier or an interference. High engagers were “interested in using mobile technology to improve their health and enthusiastically engaged with the app immediately and consistently thereafter” [50]. Among moderate users, these tools were perceived as useful means of increasing their awareness of their actions and keeping track of the details in the management of their disease, whereas those who had little to no self-involvement in the management of their health were skeptical about using mHealth apps as a means of self-management. The level of engagement of the members of this group was found to be minimal to low. They were not able to integrate these apps successfully into their daily routine and stated that they were a burden. Overall, the perceived value of these apps and their integration as well as patients’ engagement with the tool depend on how self-reliant the patients are.

### Gaining Greater Control and Autonomy

Patients provided with a tool that gave them access to useful supplementary information and helped them engage with their providers declared that they felt more empowered and in control of their condition, disease, or regimen. When the information provided in the app is succinct, comprehensible, and easily accessible, patients feel that they can improve their knowledge about their disease or condition, symptoms, and medication. One participant noted that one of the apps had too much content, and she felt “overwhelmed by the information each time [she] opened it. [She did] not have the patience to read all of [it]…” [63]. Therefore, in order to ensure that patients will engage fully with an app, the information provided must be clearly and concisely presented in laymen’s terms [58].

In addition to the supplementary information provided by these apps, the possibility of recording treatment-related conversations with physicians or their medical team gives patients a sense of control, especially when they are distressed [33]. Patients also mentioned that it would be beneficial to be able to edit and share the files recorded. However, recordings of meetings and consultations would have to be hashed out in detail to make sure that patients’ identity and data are protected.

Apps provide young people with chronic conditions a sense of autonomy and help develop skills such as problem-solving and decision-making skills and the ability to use resources and build
relationships with professionals [61]. Having a tool equipped
with these functions provided them with a “secure and
supportive environment” [61]. Young patients often stated that
having an interactive app with which they were in control
provided them with information, a means of monitoring
symptoms, and social support [61]. Patients found
self-monitoring apps to be especially helpful for managing their
symptoms or their mood in the case of bipolar disorders, by
providing personalized feedback [32,60]. With self-monitoring
apps, patients are able to gain control over their own health and
health care and feel more empowered when consulting a doctor.
They are usually enthusiastic about apps and willing to engage
with them. However, some other patients tend to feel that apps
are too demanding, which leads them to give up on using them
regularly [57]. Apps should not have too many push
notifications, as they can overwhelm or burden the users.

In short, with their newly acquired knowledge, patients felt they
were well equipped to manage their own disease or condition,
symptoms, medication, health-related behavior, and test results,
thus facilitating the decision-making process and making them
feel reassured and empowered.

Concerns of Trustworthiness

Scientific Validity

Most of the patients interviewed said they were in agreement
with the concerns sometimes expressed about the validity of
the information provided on mHealth apps. Although patients
found mHealth apps informative and supportive, they also
expressed worry about how reliable the information may be.
Patients mentioned that without the basic support they received
from their providers, they would be much less inclined to trust
the information provided by apps. Patients are sometimes rather
skeptical of their apps because there is no proof that the
information provided is evidence based or obtained from a
reliable source. They suggested that it would be better if
providers were able to back up the information conveyed by
apps. They suggested that app designers should use
evidence-based information and cite the sources of the
information conveyed in order to confirm its validity. As
mentioned in Goetz's study [37], pregnant women, in particular,
specified the need for scientifically valid data. Many of the users
of these apps objected that the quality of the information they
provide is questionable. Patients even explicitly stated that if
their provider recommended an app, "it would make a
difference" [58]. Having an app recommended by a physician
familiar with evidence-based information is one of the most
important criteria according to the users.

Technical Validity

The main issues mentioned by users in connection with these
apps were those of privacy and security. Many of these apps
ask users for sensitive information to achieve optimum
performances. Some apps also allow providers to send patients
personal data and findings via the app. Patients were concerned
about the security of the apps, how many parties were able to
view their data, and whether a data breach might occur. They
wanted to know what the consequences of a situation of this
kind might be and how it could be dealt with.

Concerns about privacy and data ownership were voiced in
Giunti's study [52], in which patients said they were not happy
about having a third party, such as pharmaceutical or insurance
companies, having access to their data. One patient put this
point quite clearly: "If everyone could see my data, I wouldn't
give [the app] a chance" [52]. Similar findings were obtained
in connection with an app that was tailored for HIV patients
[24]. Patients expressed great concern about the privacy of their
information, how much personal information they were willing
to contribute, and the risk of being tracked [24,31]. Participants
in the study by Martinez [25] mentioned "hackers" and "big
brother" "to express their mistrust regarding the current state
of digital information security" [25].

Appropriateness as an Essential Quality

Relevance to Specific Diseases and Conditions

Several articles reviewed reported that many patients
interviewed reported that these apps should be designed more
closely in line with their condition or their disease, keeping
individual users' lifestyles and needs in mind. For example,
since patients with cystic fibrosis have to follow a very strict
multidrug treatment regimen, using an mHealth app could help
them comply with it [51]. However, many patients find that the
apps designed to promote compliance with drug treatment for
cystic fibrosis did not take into account the busy lives these
patients lead. Frequent alarms and notifications to take their
medication may be annoying and consume their phone battery.
Patients would prefer apps to be customizable to suit the user
and tailored to meet individual preferences [25]. For example,
there should be a "snooze" option if the medication cannot be
taken immediately, or it should be possible to personalize the
function so that their multiple-drug intake can be recorded in
their schedule [21].

Cultural and User Appropriateness

Patients also stressed the need for apps to understand their users. It is essential for app developers to know who their end users are going to be and to ensure that the products are appropriate for them. For example, an HIV management app tailored for young men who have sex with other young men should be tailored to the specificities of this population. In this particular case, the author of the study mentioned that these young male patients would like to have an app that is colorful, bright, and visually appealing [36]. Developers need to keep the users and users' culture in mind in order to ensure their engagement [48]. Young people usually prefer youth-friendly language and designs [35,46,61].

Patients expressed the need for specific information, which
plays an important role in their sociocultural groups, such as
information about diet in the case of Chinese women with breast
cancer [63]. Culturally tailored help with some specific
characteristics of the disease could be added to improve the
content of these apps. For instance, apps could help improve
people's perception of stigmatized diseases (such as cancer in
some countries) and thus strengthen their engagement with their
apps [63].
## The Need for Greater Personalization

One of the most critical factors stressed upon by many participants in these studies was the need to personalize the content of mHealth apps to a greater extent. Patients believed that since mHealth apps were created for their use, they should be able to personalize the apps to meet their own needs. From the patients' point of view, using personalized apps could be as simple as changing the text size. It can be more complex to, for instance, make a drug regimen notification more flexible, give users the choice of adding personal information and receiving advice, or program a self-management app acting like a virtual personal coach [22,32,44,60]. Users wanted to be able to adjust the timing of their prompts, the number of symptoms reported, the frequency of health tips, and so forth [47]. Users also suggested that personalization of the app could also include the language used on the app: Some of them felt that the language used was rather patronizing, and they wanted to be able to change the type of language used to suit their tastes [47].

Greater personalization of apps could also make users feel more interactive with them. One user suggested, for example, that in order to meet health-related goals, they could have avatars that change, mature, and develop as the users learn more, achieve more goals, and become more independent by improving their self-management skills [34]. On the whole, patients value apps that are customized and tailored to meet their needs [25]. With more complex diseases such as cystic fibrosis, personalization is an essential requirement for users. With some diseases and conditions, management or treatment of the disease can vary from one patient to another, and patients may therefore have different routines to follow [51]. It would be best if these apps included "diverse functions" that enable patients to personalize and tailor them to meet their needs

## Accessibility Issues

In addition to the trustworthiness of the information and the appropriateness of the app, patients were also worried about a few issues related to their access to apps, such as the connectivity and cost. Some patients found that they had problems with their connection to these apps and other user interface issues. The frustration of not being able to connect with the apps was found to be particularly prevalent among older adults and the elderly, who frequently have poor eyesight and a lower level of digital literacy than other age groups [25,43,57,62]. The elderly patients included in the studies reviewed consisted of two groups: those wanting to acquire digital skills in order to be able to engage with these apps and those having no desire to improve their digital skills for this purpose [57]. Some expressed the feeling that placing greater reliance on technology meant that they were "admitting that the memory isn't as good as it used to be," which is distressing and prevented them from wanting to engage with their app [57]. Those with high-to-moderate levels of familiarity with computer technology were more likely to want to use apps, while those who were less familiar with computers and mobile phones were less likely to do so. People's preferences for the use of apps varied, depending on their familiarity with this form of technology and their wish to become digitally competent. In addition to their digital incompetence, some patients have

physical barriers that have to be overcome to be able to use these apps. Elderly patients have described poor eyesight as one of the main barriers to using apps because they are not able to see their phone screens clearly [25,62].

Other accessibility challenges cited by patients are the extensive battery and memory requirements of smartphones [44]. For example, the mHealth app designed for pregnancy care used a lot of battery and memory space, which set patients problems. Patients had to ask themselves "what kind of apps do you delete?...[apps that use] lots of memory, lots of power, apps that are very active, [but] in that case your battery goes down..." [44]. Instead of being able to use their app to manage their care seamlessly, patients were bothered with having to think about whether an app was worth keeping.

Another issue patients faced was the cost of these apps [25], especially in developing countries where some patients cannot afford them [62]. In addition, some patients were worried about purchasing data to use the app when they were not living in an area with available Wi-Fi [62]. Not being able to use apps consistently because of data issues deterred some patients from engaging with them for long. An additional cost-related barrier was the fact that some apps charge patients a fee for obtaining full access to the app and for being advertisement-free [41,58]. Some patients would have to pay for using the full app, since some free versions provided only a few functions. The financial issues arising therefore prevented some potential app users from fully optimizing the use of an app and engaging with it.

## Discussion

### Principal Findings

To our knowledge, this is the first review of qualitative studies available in the literature that provides an overall picture of patients' perceptions, beliefs, and experiences of mHealth apps. This study completes the model identifying the factors involved in the effective use of mHealth Apps for self-care purposes developed by Azhar and Dhillon [17]. In this model, the behavioral intention to use mHealth for self-care purposes is influenced by perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, performance expectancy, social influence, self-efficacy, potential lack of privacy, and hedonic motives.

Our interpretation of qualitative findings shows how mHealth can strengthen patients' engagement and sheds light on the dynamics of patients' engagement and ways to make patients feel more empowered by using mHealth apps. As defined by Carman, the concept of patient engagement develops "as patients...and health professionals [work] in active partnership at various levels across the health care system - direct care, organizational design and governance, and policy making - to improve health and health care" [64]. Some authors have portrayed eHealth (internet and related technologies) as an important means of achieving patient engagement [65], especially in the case of isolated people and those who are hard to reach or have difficulty in remaining engaged in care [16]. Even when patients are not physically in a health care setting, health care advice and guidance are within easy reach at all times. From the patients' point of view, mHealth could facilitate
communication with health care providers and other patients, encourage them to be more participative during clinical encounters, and promote the use of coping techniques to manage their illness. However, some studies based on other methods have shown that some patients are reluctant to use mHealth apps, which is paradoxically the case with adolescent patients because they want to separate their feelings of being a patient from those of being a teenager and make their illnesses and diseases invisible [66]. In addition, they find apps, especially those with push notifications, annoying, intrusive, and time consuming [66]. Patients also stated that although these technical health innovations have supported them in many different respects, they still view their providers as the first point of contact to be consulted for discussing the options available. Health apps serve only as back-up consultations when they are really needed; apps are simply available to support physician-patient relationships and do not replace a physician in any way. mHealth is therefore not a substitute for care but simply a complementary tool [67].

Most of the studies included in this review suggest that patients feel empowered by the information provided by mHealth. WHO defines empowerment for health as: “...a process through which people gain greater control over decisions and actions affecting their life” [68]. According to the World Health Organization, adequate and understandable information is a necessary prerequisite for patient empowerment. Health care policymakers, politicians, and the media share the widespread idea that digital health technologies empower patients [9]. However, when faced with too much overwhelming information, users tend to feel more confused and possibly disempowered, which decreases the effectiveness of discussions with their physicians [67]. Users have also mentioned that the possible lack of validity of the information provided by apps makes it difficult to trust this information, which may make empowerment ambivalent. However, as mentioned above, if apps presented valid information more clearly and concisely, they could possibly incite users to engage more strongly with them as well as with users' providers, caretakers, and support networks. Some authors have also reported that patients described themselves as reluctant, resistant, and anxious when using digital devices because they feel “disempowered” owing to the surveillance performed by some digital devices, which restricts their autonomy and reminds them that they are ill [69].

The results presented here suggest that despite the many advantages of mHealth apps, barriers to their successful adoption persist. Patients are still reluctant to rely solely on these tools for reasons related to privacy and security and the validity of the information provided. Other barriers to the optimal usage of apps are a lack of accessibility (the cost and absence of access to Wi-Fi) and issues concerning the technical and scientific validity of these tools. Many of the challenges could be met if there was more support on the part of health providers. In addition, standards could be developed and implemented to ensure that these apps provide patients with accurate evidence-based information. These standards could also address the security and privacy issues that many patients are concerned about as well as the compatibility of mobile apps with the technology with which existing health care systems are

equipped. There is also a need for inexpensive quality apps and updates (possibly financed by health insurance funds or other agencies) that patients can easily afford.

The levels of engagement and empowerment resulting from the use of mobile phone apps and tools have been found to depend on the users. For example, one study showed that older adults were faced with barriers to adopting these tools because they were not as familiar with smartphones and tablets as younger people and had difficulty in using these technologies [70], whereas those who were digitally literate preferred to receive health information via tablets and electronic devices [70]. Patients' requirements should be taken into account by those designing mobile health apps in order to alleviate some of the burden [71]. In addition, preference for the use of mobile devices can differ in some contexts. Female participants in Ghana spoke, for example, about how they did not comply voluntarily with health messages “because they didn't see the point or because it went against their own experience or local knowledge” [72]. Users often expressed the feeling that automatic generic health messages seemed “depersonalized,” which may have resulted in “the opposite effects from those expected by the promoters of mHealth: Reduce caregiver-patient interactions and loosen the link with the health system” [72]. When developers create apps and tools of this kind for users, they should keep their users in mind and remember how their personal identity may influence users' integration and engagement with the apps in order to facilitate adoption of the apps and the perpetuation of their use.

Although most authors focusing on developing countries discussed how mHealth apps help community health workers, few of them discussed the perspectives of patients using these apps. As the infrastructures with which the large cities in developing countries are improving, their inhabitants are gaining greater access to mobile data and Wi-Fi [73]. However, although the rates of penetration of mobile data and Wi-Fi have reached approximately 50% in these places, rural and underdeveloped regions still have no access at all to these services. It may be necessary to improve the infrastructure in developing countries' rural and underdeveloped regions in order to be able to promote the use of mHealth apps [74].

## Limitations

Since only full-text articles available in English on PubMed were included in this review, many other studies have not been included because they were not written in English or were still in progress at the time of publication. The papers included here deal mainly with developed countries and less with developing countries, which limits the general validity of the results presented here. Since the rates of smartphone ownership in developing countries increased from 21% to 37% in 2015 and the active mobile phone subscription rates reached 53.6% in 2017, the uptake of mHealth apps may be different in these countries from the situation in more industrialized countries [3,75]. mHealth integration may have considerable implications in developing countries [76]. It is therefore worth noting the perceptions of individuals inhabiting developing countries in order to establish how this technological advancement is liable to improve or limit their access to health care [77].
## Conclusions

In this review, a meta-ethnographic approach was used to summarize the data published in 43 qualitative studies on patients' perceptions of mHealth. Although mHealth apps were considered a useful complementary tool by many of the patients studied, some major issues emerged with regard to the optimal

use of mHealth technologies, such as the need for more highly tailored designs, their cost, the validity of the information they provide, and issues such as privacy and security. Lastly, there is definitely a need for apps to be more personalized in order to meet the needs of individual users and their particular disease or condition, by designing apps that are easier to use, for example, by those who are not as digitally literate as others.

## Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the support of the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) under grant ANR-17-CE19-0027 (project ApiAppS).

## Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

## References

1. UNICEF connect. 2012. 1000 Days: A mHealth Product Overview URL: https://blogs.unicef.org/innovation/1000-days-a-mhealth-product-overview/ [accessed 2019-06-18]

2. World Health Organization. 2011. mHealth New horizons for health through mobile technologies URL: https://www.who.int/goe/publications/goe_mhealth_web.pdf [accessed 2019-06-18]

3. International Telecommunication Union. 2018. Measuring the Information Society Report URL: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/misr2018.aspx [accessed 2019-06-28]

4. Lupton D. Apps as Artefacts: Towards a critical perspective on mobile health and medical apps. Societies 2014;4(4):606-622. [doi: 10.3390/soc4040606]

5. Zapata BC, Fernández-Alemán JL, Idri A, Toval A. Empirical studies on usability of mHealth apps: a systematic literature review. J Med Syst 2015 Feb;39(2):1. [doi: 10.1007/s10916-014-0182-2] [Medline: 25600193]

6. Yasini M, Marchand G. Toward a use case based classification of mobile health applications. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015;210:175-179. [Medline: 25991125]

7. Goel S, Bhatnagar N, Sharma D, Singh A. Bridging the Human Resource Gap in Primary Health Care Delivery Systems of Developing Countries With mHealth: Narrative Literature Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2013;1(2):e25 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.2688] [Medline: 25099436]

8. Becker S, Miron-Shatz T, Schumacher N, Krocza J, Diamantidis C, Albrecht U. mHealth 2.0: Experiences, Possibilities, and Perspectives. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2014;2(2):e24 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3328] [Medline: 25099752]

9. Lupton D. M-health and health promotion: The digital cyborg and surveillance society. Soc Theory Health 2012 Jun 27;10(3):229-244 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1057/sth.2012.6]

10. Al Dahdah M. mHealth: l'information de santé ubique? Le Temps des Médias 2014;23(2):52-65 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.3917/tdm.023.0052]

11. Kim SS, Patel M, Hinman A. Use of m-Health in polio eradication and other immunization activities in developing countries. Vaccine 2017 Dec 07;35(10):1373-1379. [doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.01.058] [Medline: 28190744]

12. Martínez-Pérez B, de la Torre-Díez I, López-Coronado M, Herreros-González J. Mobile apps in cardiology: review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2013 Jul 24;1(2):e15 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.2737] [Medline: 25098320]

13. Rivera-Romero O, Olmo A, Muñoz R, Stiefel P, Miranda ML, Beltrán LM. Mobile Health Solutions for Hypertensive Disorders in Pregnancy: Scoping Literature Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 May 30;6(5):e130 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9671] [Medline: 29848473]

14. Giunti G, Guisado FE, Dorronzoro ZE, Rivera RO. Supply and Demand in mHealth Apps for Persons With Multiple Sclerosis: Systematic Search in App Stores and Scoping Literature Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 May 23;6(5):e10512 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/10512] [Medline: 29792295]

15. Ross J, Stevenson F, Lau R, Murray E. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implement Sci 2016 Oct 26;11(1):146 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0510-7] [Medline: 27782832]

16. Braun R, Catalani C, Wimbush J, Israelski D. Community health workers and mobile technology: a systematic review of the literature. PLoS One 2013;8(6):e65772 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065772] [Medline: 23776544]

17. Azhar F, Dhillon J. A systematic review of factors influencing the effective use of mHealth apps for self-care. : IEEE; 2016 Presented at: 3rd International Conference on Computer and Information Sciences (ICCOINS); 2016; Kuala Lumpur p. 191-196 URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7783213

18. Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995 Jul 1;311(6996):42-45 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 7613329]
19. Smith A. Pew Research Center: Internet & Technology. 2013 Jun 05. Smartphone Ownership 2013 URL: https://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2013/ [accessed 2019-06-28]

20. Noblit G, Hare R. Meta-ethnography synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, London: Sage Publications; 1988.

21. Hilliard ME, Hahn A, Ridge AK, Eakin MN, Riekert KA. User Preferences and Design Recommendations for an mHealth App to Promote Cystic Fibrosis Self-Management. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2014;2(4):e44 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3599] [Medline: 25344616]

22. Lubberding S, van Uden-Kraan CF, Te Velde EA, Cuijpers P, Leemans CR, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM. Improving access to supportive cancer care through an eHealth application: a qualitative needs assessment among cancer survivors. J Clin Nurs 2015 May;24(9-10):1367-1379. [doi: 10.1111/jocn.12753] [Medline: 25677218]

23. Schnall R, Bakken S, Rojas M, Travers J, Carballo-Dieguez A. mHealth Technology as a Persuasive Tool for Treatment, Care and Management of Persons Living with HIV. AIDS Behav 2015 Jun;19 Suppl 2:81-89. [doi: 10.1007/s10461-014-0984-8] [Medline: 25572830]

24. Schnall R, Higgins T, Brown W, Carballo-Dieguez A, Bakken S. Trust, Perceived Risk, Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness as Factors Related to mHealth Technology Use. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015;216:467-471 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 26262094]

25. Martinez P. Harvard Medical School. 2015. A qualitative study on patient perceptions towards mHealth technology among high risk, chronic disease patients URL: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:17295915 [accessed 2019-06-28]

26. Egsgaard LL, Christensen TS, Petersen IM, Brønnum DS, Boudreau SA. Do Gender-Specific and High-Resolution Three Dimensional Body Charts Facilitate the Communication of Pain for Women? A Quantitative and Qualitative Study. JMIR Hum Factors 2016 Jul 20;3(2):e19 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/humanfactors.5693] [Medline: 27440737]

27. Israni A, Dean C, Kasel B, Berndt L, Wildebush W, Wang CJ. Why do Patients Forget to Take Immunosuppression Medications and Miss Appointments: Can a Mobile Phone App Help? JMIR Public Health Surveill 2016;2(1):e15 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/publichealth.5285] [Medline: 27227150]

28. Knight BA, McIntyre HD, Hickman IJ, Noud M. Qualitative assessment of user experiences of a novel smart phone application designed to support flexible intensive insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016 Dec 15;16:119 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0356-6] [Medline: 27629774]

29. Lupton D. The use and value of digital media for information about pregnancy and early motherhood: a focus group study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016 Jul 19;16(1):171 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0971-3] [Medline: 27435182]

30. Puszkiewicz P, Roberts AL, Smith L, Wardle J, Fisher A. Assessment of Cancer Survivors' Experiences of Using a Publicly Available Physical Activity Mobile Application. JMIR Cancer 2016 May 31;2(1):e7 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/cancer.5380] [Medline: 28410168]

31. Rosen RK, Ranney ML, Boyer EW. Formative research for mhealth HIV adherence: the iHAART app. Proc Annu Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci 2015 Jan;2015:2778-2785 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2015.336] [Medline: 26644783]

32. Simons L, Valentine AZ, Falconer CJ, Groom M, Daley D, Craven MP, et al. Developing mHealth Remote Monitoring Technology for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Qualitative Study Eliciting User Priorities and Needs. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2016 Mar 23;4(1):e31 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.5009] [Medline: 27009498]

33. Young-Afat DA, van Gils CH, Bruinvels DJ, van der Pol CC, Witkamp AJ, Sijtsema S, et al. Patients' and Health Care Providers' Opinions on a Supportive Health App During Breast Cancer Treatment: A Qualitative Evaluation. JMIR Cancer 2016 Jun 07;2(1):e8 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/cancer.5334] [Medline: 28410170]

34. Bendixen RM, Fairman AD, Karavolis M, Sullivan C, Parmanto B. A User-Centered Approach: Understanding Client and Caregiver Needs and Preferences in the Development of mHealth Apps for Self-Management. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 Sep 26;5(9):e141 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.7136] [Medline: 28951378]

35. Cai RA, Beste D, Chaplin H, Varakliotis S, Suffield L, Josephs F, et al. Developing and Evaluating JIApp: Acceptability and Usability of a Smartphone App System to Improve Self-Management in Young People With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 Aug 15;5(8):e121 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.7229] [Medline: 28811270]

36. Fleming JB, Hill YN, Burns MN. Usability of a Culturally Informed mHealth Intervention for Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression: Feedback From Young Sexual Minority Men. JMIR Hum Factors 2017 Aug 25;4(3):e22 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/humanfactors.7392] [Medline: 28842389]

37. Goetz M, Müller M, Matthies LM, Hansen J, Doster A, Szabo A, et al. Perceptions of Patient Engagement Applications During Pregnancy: A Qualitative Assessment of the Patient's Perspective. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 May 26;5(5):e73 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.7040] [Medline: 28550005]

38. Hälleberg NM, Frank C, Langius-Eklöf A, Blomberg K, Sundberg K, Wengström Y. Patients' Perspective on Participation in Care With or Without the Support of a Smartphone App During Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Qualitative Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 Jul 26;5(7):e107 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.6829] [Medline: 28747294]

39. Huerta-Ramos E, Marcó-García S, Escobar-Villegas MS, Rubio-Abadal E, Ochoa S, Grasa Bello EM, et al. m-RESIST, a complete m-Health solution for patients with treatmentresistant schizophrenia: a qualitative study of user needs and acceptability in the Barcelona metropolitan area. Actas Esp Psiquiatr 2017 Nov;45(6):277-289 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 29199762]
40. Langius-Eklöf A, Christiansen M, Lindström V, Blomberg K, Hälleberg Nyman M, Wengström Y, et al. Adherence to Report and Patient Perception of an Interactive App for Managing Symptoms During Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Descriptive Study of Logged and Interview Data. JMIR Cancer 2017 Oct 31;3(2):e18 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/cancer.7599] [Medline: 29089290]

41. Mistler LA, Ben-Zeev D, Carpenter-Song E, Brunette MF, Friedman MJ. Mobile Mindfulness Intervention on an Acute Psychiatric Unit: Feasibility and Acceptability Study. JMIR Ment Health 2017 Aug 21;4(3):e34 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mental.7717] [Medline: 28827214]

42. Nightingale R, Hall A, Gelder C, Friedl S, Brennan E, Swallow V. Desirable Components for a Customized, Home-Based, Digital Care-Management App for Children and Young People With Long-Term, Chronic Conditions: A Qualitative Exploration. J Med Internet Res 2017 Jul 04;19(7):e235 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.7760] [Medline: 28676470]

43. Sebern MD, Sulemanjee N, Sebern MJ, Garnier-Villarreal M, Whitlatch CJ. Does an intervention designed to improve self-management, social support and awareness of palliative-care address needs of persons with heart failure, family caregivers and clinicians? J Clin Nurs 2018 Feb;27(3-4):e643-e657. [doi: 10.1111/jocn.14115] [Medline: 29052316]

44. Velu AV, van Beukering MD, Schaafsma FG, Frings-Dresen MH, Mol BW, van der Post JA, et al. Barriers and Facilitators for the Use of a Medical Mobile App to Prevent Work-Related Risks in Pregnancy: A Qualitative Analysis. JMIR Res Protoc 2017 Aug 22;6(8):e163 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/resprot.7224] [Medline: 28830851]

45. Westergaard RP, Genz A, Panico K, Surkan PJ, Keruly J, Hutton HE, et al. Acceptability of a mobile health intervention to enhance HIV care coordination for patients with substance use disorders. Addict Sci Clin Pract 2017 Dec 26;12(1):11 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/s13722-017-0076-y] [Medline: 28441962]

46. Webb MJ, Wadley G, Sanci LA. Improving Patient-Centered Care for Young People in General Practice With a Codesigned Screening App: Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 Aug 11;5(8):e118 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.7816] [Medline: 28801302]

47. Bauer AM, Iles-Shih M, Ghomi RH, Rue T, Grover T, Kincler N, et al. Acceptability of mHealth augmentation of Collaborative Care: A mixed methods pilot study. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2017 Nov 24;51:22-29. [doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2017.11.010] [Medline: 29272712]

48. Cordova D, Alers-Rojas F, Lua FM, Bauermeister J, Nurenberg R, Ovadje L, et al. The Usability and Acceptability of an Adolescent mHealth HIV/STI and Drug Abuse Preventive Intervention in Primary Care. Behav Med 2016 May 25:1-12. [doi: 10.1080/08964289.2016.1189396] [Medline: 27223646]

49. Dahlberg K, Jaensson M, Nilsson U, Eriksson M, Odencrants S. Holding It Together-Patients' Perspectives on Postoperative Recovery When Using an e-Assessed Follow-Up: Qualitative Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 May 25;6(5):e10387 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/10387] [Medline: 29802094]

50. Desveaux L, Shaw J, Saragosa M, Soobiah C, Marani H, Hensel J, et al. A Mobile App to Improve Self-Management of Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes: Qualitative Realist Evaluation. J Med Internet Res 2018 Mar 16;20(3):e81 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.8712] [Medline: 29549070]

51. Floch J, Zettl A, Fricke L, Weisser T, Grut L, Vilarinho T, et al. User Needs in the Development of a Health App Ecosystem for Self-Management of Cystic Fibrosis: User-Centered Development Approach. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 May 08;6(5):e113 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.8236] [Medline: 29739742]

52. Giunti G, Kool J, Rivera RO, Dorronzoro ZE. Exploring the Specific Needs of Persons with Multiple Sclerosis for mHealth Solutions for Physical Activity: Mixed-Methods Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 Feb 09;6(2):e37 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.8996] [Medline: 29426814]

53. Grist R, Porter J, Stallard P. Acceptability, Use, and Safety of a Mobile Phone App (BlueIce) for Young People Who Self-Harm: Qualitative Study of Service Users' Experience. JMIR Ment Health 2018 Feb 23;5(1):e16 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mental.8779] [Medline: 29475823]

54. Hirschey J, Bane S, Mansour M, Sperber J, Agboola S, Kvedar J, et al. Evaluating the Usability and Usefulness of a Mobile App for Atrial Fibrillation Using Qualitative Methods: Exploratory Pilot Study. JMIR Hum Factors 2018 Mar 15;5(1):e13 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/humanfactors.8004] [Medline: 29549073]

55. Husted GR, Weis J, Teilmann G, Castensøe-Seidenfaden P. Exploring the Influence of a Smartphone App (Young with Diabetes) on Young People's Self-Management: Qualitative Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 Feb 28;6(2):e43 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.8876] [Medline: 29490897]

56. Jibb LA, Stevens BJ, Nathan PC, Seto E, Cafazzo JA, Johnston DL, et al. Perceptions of Adolescents With Cancer Related to a Pain Management App and Its Evaluation: Qualitative Study Nested Within a Multicenter Pilot Feasibility Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 Apr 06;6(4):e80 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9319] [Medline: 29625951]

57. Morrissey EC, Casey M, Glynn LG, Walsh JC, Molloy GJ. Smartphone apps for improving medication adherence in hypertension: patients' perspectives. Patient Prefer Adherence 2018;12:813-822 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2147/PPA.S145647] [Medline: 29785096]

58. Riis A, Hjelmager DM, Vinther LD, Rathleff MS, Hartvigsen J, Jensen MB. Preferences for Web-Based Information Material for Low Back Pain: Qualitative Interview Study on People Consulting a General Practitioner. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2018 Apr 02;5(1):e7 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/rehab.8841] [Medline: 29610108]
59. Shorey S, Yang YY, Dennis C. A Mobile Health App-Based Postnatal Educational Program (Home-but not Alone): Descriptive Qualitative Study. J Med Internet Res 2018 Apr 19;20(4):e119 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.9188] [Medline: 29674314]

60. Switsers L, Dauwe A, Vanhoudt A, Van Dyck H, Lombaerts K, Oldenburg J. Users' Perspectives on mHealth Self-Management of Bipolar Disorder: Qualitative Focus Group Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 May 02;6(5):e108 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9529] [Medline: 29720363]

61. Waite-Jones JM, Majeed-Ariss R, Smith J, Stones SR, Van Rooyen V, Swallow V. Young People's, Parents', and Professionals' Views on Required Components of Mobile Apps to Support Self-Management of Juvenile Arthritis: Qualitative Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 Jan 19;6(1):e25 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9179] [Medline: 29351898]

62. Anstey Watkins JOT, Goudje J, Gómez-Olivé FX, Griffiths F. Mobile phone use among patients and health workers to enhance primary healthcare: A qualitative study in rural South Africa. Soc Sci Med 2018 Dec;198:139-147 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.011] [Medline: 29335160]

63. Zhu J, Ebert L, Guo D, Yang S, Han Q, Chan SW. Mobile Breast Cancer e-Support Program for Chinese Women With Breast Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy (Part 1): Qualitative Study of Women's Perceptions. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 Apr 11;6(4):e85 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9311] [Medline: 29643056]

64. Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M, Sofaer S, Adams K, Bechtel C, et al. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013 Feb;32(2):223-231 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1133] [Medline: 23381514]

65. Eysenbach G. What is e-health? J Med Internet Res 2001 Jun;3(2):E20. [doi: 10.2196/jmir.3.2.e20] [Medline: 11720962]

66. Sommervold MM, van der Velden M. Visions of Illness, Disease, and Sickness in Mobile Health Applications. Societies 2017 Oct 26;7(4):28 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.3390/soc7040028]

67. Catan G, Espanha R, Mendes RV, Toren O, Chinitz D. Health information technology implementation - impacts and policy considerations: a comparison between Israel and Portugal. Isr J Health Policy Res 2015;4:41 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/s13584-015-0040-9] [Medline: 26269740]

68. World Health Organization. 1998. Health Promotion Glossary URL: https://www.who.int/healthpromotion/about/ HPR%20Glossary%201998.pdf [accessed 2019-06-28] [WebCite Cache ID 76NIvw5jy]

69. Lupton D. Quantifying the body: monitoring and measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies. Critical Public Health 2013 Dec;23(4):393-403 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1080/09581596.2013.794931]

70. Granger D, Vandelanotte C, Duncan MJ, Alley S, Schoeppe S, Short C, et al. Is preference for mHealth intervention delivery platform associated with delivery platform familiarity? BMC Public Health 2016 Jul 22;16:619 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3316-2] [Medline: 27450240]

71. van der Weegen S, Verwey R, Spreeuwenberg M, Tange H, van der Weijden T, de Witte L. The development of a mobile monitoring and feedback tool to stimulate physical activity of people with a chronic disease in primary care: a user-centered design. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2013 Jul 02;1(2):e8 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.2526] [Medline: 25099556]

72. Al Dahdah M. Health at her fingertips: development, gender and empowering mobile technologies. Gender, Technology and Development 2017 Oct 25;21(1-2):135-151 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1080/09718524.2017.1385701]

73. Kirkpatrick K. Bringing the internet to the (developing) world. Commun ACM 2018 Jun 25;61(7):20-21. [doi: 10.1145/3213775]

74. Mumbere D. AfricaNews. 2018. Digital Africa's internet users increase by 20% URL: http://www.africanews.com/2018/ 02/06/digital-in-2018-africa-s-internet-users-increase-by-20-percent/ [accessed 2019-06-28] [WebCite Cache ID 76NLChkL]

75. Poushter J. Pew Research Center: Global Attitudes & Trends. 2016. Smartphone Ownership and Internet Usage Continues to Climb in Emerging Economies URL: http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/ smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/ [accessed 2019-06-28] [WebCite Cache ID 76NOr4uUH]

76. Jennings L, Gagliardi L. Influence of mHealth interventions on gender relations in developing countries: a systematic literature review. Int J Equity Health 2013;12:85 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/1475-9276-12-85] [Medline: 24131553]

77. Al Dahdah M, Desgrées Du Loû A, Méadel C. Mobile health and maternal care: A winning combination for healthcare in the developing world? Health Policy and Technology 2015 Sep;4(3):225-231 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2015.04.002]

Abbreviations

eHealth: electronic health

mHealth: mobile health

NOAC: Nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant

SMS: short message service
Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 25.02.19; peer-reviewed by J Waite-Jones, S Beidas; comments to author 28.03.19; revised version received 09.05.19; accepted 27.05.19; published 10.07.19

Please cite as:

Vo V, Auroy L, Sarradon-Eck A

Patients' Perceptions of mHealth Apps: Meta-Ethnographic Review of Qualitative Studies

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019;7(7):e13817

URL: http://mhealth.jmir.org/2019/7/e13817/

doi: 10.2196/13817

PMID: 31293246

©VanAnh Vo, Lola Auroy, Aline Sarradon-Eck. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 10.07.2019. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mhealth and uhealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.