NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
App stores provide a range of health applications for people living with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD). Users like patients can access information from both manufacturer-provided app descriptions and metadata, as well as from user reviews. However, navigating this information to identify value-generating apps of high quality remains challenging. From a health technology assessment (HTA) standpoint, quality is defined by evidence-based medicine, safety, and user-centeredness. To explore the potential value of app store information available to patients, we conducted a descriptive, mixed-methods analysis of unstructured app metadata and user feedback from the Apple App Store and Google Play Store (as of May 2024). We analyzed 1,237 AD/PD-related apps which included 50 duplicates (resulting in 1,187 apps), utilizing descriptive statistics, content analysis, large language model-supported exploratory classification, and a topic modeling approach. In total, only about 2% of the apps claimed to be certified medical devices. Moreover, 24% of Apple apps and 14% of Google apps were in the "Medical" app store genre, among which we found that 63% of Apple and 54% of Google apps were patient-facing. We manually categorized patient-facing apps predominantly under "Care Support," followed by "Health & Wellness" and "Patient Monitoring." Importantly, user feedback provided exploratory, potentially valuable patient-reported outcome and experience information but is derived from personal opinions on "user experience," "health improvement," and "costs." As quality information on DHTs could be identified in unstructured app metadata, this information should be improved in trustworthiness and more accessible to users like patients, supporting the public to find high-quality health apps. Furthermore, as user opinions contained information with potential value for patients, these should be explored as complementary value-generating indicators of health apps in future work.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.