Background: Knowledge of the quantity and quality of apps related to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is lacking. In addition, no directory has been established listing all the apps developed to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify smartphone apps designed to address the COVID-19 pandemic and to analyze their characteristics. Methods: We performed an observational, cross-sectional, descriptive study of all smartphone apps associated with COVID-19. Between April 27 and May 2, 2020, we searched the App Store (iOS) and Google Play Store (Android) for COVID-19 apps. The search terms used were coronavirus, COVID-19, and SARS-COV-2. The apps were downloaded and evaluated. The variables analyzed were name, platform, country, language, category, cost, update date, size, version, number of downloads, developer, and purpose. Purpose was further classified into the following categories: news, general information, self-diagnosis, contact tracing, notices to contacts, notification of close cases, awareness, helplines, monitoring of clinical parameters, recording of symptoms and treatment, and messaging with health care professionals. Results: We identified 114 apps on the investigated platforms. Of these, 62/114 (54.4%) were on Android and 52/114 (45.6%) were on iOS. Of the 114 apps, 37 (32.5%) were developed in Europe, 32 (28.1%) in Asia, and 30 (26.3%) in North America. The most frequent languages were English (65/114, 57.0%), Spanish (34/114, 29.8%), and Chinese (14/114, 12.3%). The most common categories were health and well-being/fitness apps (41/114, 41.2%) and medicine apps (43/114, 37.7%). Of the 114 apps, 113 (99.1%) were free. The mean time between the date of the analysis and the date of the last update was 11.1 days (SD 11.0). Overall, 95 of the 114 apps (83.3%) were intended for the general population, 99 apps (7.9%) were intended for health professionals, and 3 apps (2.6%) were intended for both. Regarding the type of developer, 64/114 apps (56.1%) were developed by governments; 42/114 (64.1%) were developed by national governments, and 23/114 (35.9%) were developed by regional governments. The apps with the highest number of downloads (100,000+) were developed by governments (P=.13), except for the World Health Organization app (500,000+). The purposes of the apps available in Western languages (107/114, 93.9%) were determined; the most common purposes were general information about COVID-19 (66, 64.0%), COVID-19 news (53, 51.0%), recording of symptoms (53, 51.0%), and contact tracing (51, 47.7%). More than one purpose was identified for 99/107 apps (92.5%). Conclusions: This paper offers a comprehensive and unique review of all available COVID-19 apps. Governments have adopted these tools during the pandemic, and more than half of the apps were developed by government agencies. The most common purposes of the apps are providing information on the numbers of infected, recovered, and deceased patients, recording of symptoms, and contact tracing.

Background: The large number of available cancer apps and their impact on the population necessitates a transparent, objective, and comprehensive evaluation by app experts, health care professionals, and users. To date, there have been no analyses or classifications of apps for patients with genitourinary cancers, which are among the most prevalent types of cancer. Objective: The objective of our study was to analyze the quality of apps for patients diagnosed with genitourinary cancers using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) and identify high-quality apps. Methods: We performed an observational cross-sectional descriptive study of all smartphone apps for patients diagnosed with genitourinary cancers available on iOS and Android platforms. In July 2019, we searched for all available apps for patients with genitourinary cancers (bladder, prostate, cervical, uterine, endometrial, kidney, testicular, and vulvar) or their caregivers. Apps were downloaded and evaluated, and the general characteristics were entered into a database. The evaluation was performed by 2 independent researchers using the MARS questionnaire, which rates 23 evaluation criteria clustered in 5 domains (Engagement, Functionality, Esthetics, Information, and Subjective Quality) on a scale from 1 to 5. Results: In total, 46 apps were analyzed. Of these, 31 (67%) were available on Android, 6 (13%) on iOS, and 9 (20%) on both platforms. The apps were free in 89% of cases (41/46), and 61% (28/46) had been updated in the previous year. The apps were intended for prostate cancer in 30% of cases (14/46) and cervical cancer in 17% (8/46). The apps were mainly informative (63%, 29/46), preventive (24%, 11/46), and diagnostic (13%, 6/46). Only 7/46 apps (15%) were developed by health care organizations. The mean MARS score for the overall quality of the 46 apps was 2.98 (SD 0.77), with a maximum of 4.63 and a minimum of 1.95. Functionality scores were quite similar for most of the apps, with the greatest differences in Engagement and Esthetics, which showed acceptable scores in one-third of the apps. The 5 apps with the highest MARS score were the following: “Bladder cancer manager,” “Kidney cancer manager,” “My prostate cancer manager,” “Target Ovarian Cancer Symptoms Diary,” and “My Cancer Coach.” We observed statistically significant differences in the MARS score between the operating systems and the developer types (P<.001 and P=.01, respectively), but not for cost (P=.62). Conclusions: MARS is a helpful methodology to decide which apps can be prescribed to patients and to identify which features should be addressed to improve these tools. Most of the apps designed for patients with genitourinary cancers only try to provide data about the disease, without coherent interactivity. The participation of health professionals in the development of these apps is low; nevertheless, we observed that both the participation of health professionals and regular updates were correlated with quality.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: Information and communication technologies (ICTs) in oncology can revolutionize the medical care of cancer patients. ICTs can promote patient’s empowerment and real-time disease monitoring. There is limited information about the impact of ICTs in cancer patients of ICTs in this patient group or indeed their level of interest in using these tools for greater management of their condition. Objective: We aimed to understand the ICT usage profile in hematology–oncology patients, to identify their needs, and to determine their level of interest in these technologies as a means of managing their disease. Methods: A 28-item questionnaire was drawn up by a multidisciplinary team including pharmacists and oncologists. The questions were organized into three blocks. A: socio-demographic characteristics; B: use of ICTs when searching for health-related information; and C: usage preferences for health apps. Hematology–oncology patients receiving treatment between May and July 2017 were included. A paper copy of the questionnaire was handed to patients in the Day Hospital or the Pharmaceutical Care Consultancy in Pharmacy Services. Results: A total of 650 questionnaires were handed out, with a participation of 94% (611/650). Patient socio-demographic characteristics: Mean age was 57.8 years-old [19–91]. Of participants, 61.9% (378/611) were women, 40.7% (249/611) had a university education, and 45.1% (276/611) of patients reported their overall state of health to be good. Use of ICTs when searching for health-related information: 87.1% (532/611) of subjects were interested in being informed about health-related matters. Of all subjects, 75.5% (532/611) sought information from health professionals and 61.3% (375/611) on the Internet. Of these, 71.2% (436/611) searched through Google and 21.9% (134/611) by means of social networks. Before going to their doctor’s appointment, 21.8% (133/611) of patients looked up information about their disease and/or treatment on the Internet. This access to the internet rose to 51% after their first medical appointment with their oncologist, up to 50.9% (311/611) of participants referred to the Internet. Usage preferences for health apps: 82.7% (505/611) had a smartphone, while 20.3% (124/611) had a health app installed. Some 81.5% (498/611) would use an app if their health professional recommended it to them, but 39.6% (242/611) were not willed to pay for it. Conclusions: The hematology–oncology patients showed a great deal of interest in searching for health-related information by means of ICTs, especially using smartphones and apps. The issues that drew the most interest in terms of apps were appointment management, advice on disease management, and communication with health professionals. Free access to these features and the recommendation by a health professional are important factors when it comes to their use. Therefore, the health care provider is a key element in the recommendation of ICTs, providing their knowledge and experience concerning their correct usage.

Background: Hematological conditions are prevalent disorders that are associated with significant comorbidities and have a major impact on patient care. Concerning new tools for the care of these patients, the number of health apps aimed at hematological patients is growing. Currently, there are no quality analyses or classifications of apps for patients diagnosed with hematological conditions. Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze the characteristics and quality of apps designed for patients diagnosed with hematological conditions by using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Methods: We performed an observational, cross-sectional descriptive study of all smartphone apps for patients diagnosed with hematological conditions. A search was conducted in March 2021 using the following terms: anemia, blood cancer, blood disorder, hematological cancer, hematological malignancy, hematological tumor, hematology, hemophilia, hemorrhage, lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma, thalassemia, thrombocytopenia, and thrombosis. The apps identified were downloaded and evaluated by 2 independent researchers. General characteristics were registered, and quality was analyzed using MARS scores. Interrater reliability was measured by using the Cohen κ coefficient. Results: We identified 2100 apps in the initial search, and 4.19% (88/2100) of apps met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Of the 88 apps, 61% (54/88) were available on Android, 30% (26/88) were available on iOS, and 9% (8/88) were available on both platforms. Moreover, 7% (6/88) required payment, and 49% (43/88) were updated in the last year. Only 26% (23/88) of the apps were developed with the participation of health professionals. Most apps were informative (60/88, 68%), followed by preventive (23/88, 26%) and diagnostic (5/88, 6%). Most of the apps were intended for patients with anemia (23/88, 26%). The mean MARS score for the overall quality of the 88 apps was 3.03 (SD 1.14), ranging from 1.19 (lowest-rated app) to 4.86 (highest-rated app). Only 47% (41/88) of the apps obtained a MARS score of over 3 points (acceptable quality). Functionality was the best-rated section, followed by aesthetics, engagement, information, and app subjective quality. The five apps with the highest MARS score were the following: Multiple Myeloma Manager, Hodgkin Lymphoma Manager, Focus On Lymphoma, ALL Manager, and CLL Manager. The analysis by operating system, developer, and cost revealed statistically significant differences in MARS scores (P<.001, P<.001, and P=.049, respectively). The interrater agreement between the 2 reviewers was substantial (k=0.78). Conclusions: There is great heterogeneity in the quality of apps for patients with hematological conditions. More than half of the apps do not meet acceptable criteria for quality and content. Most of them only provide information about the pathology, lacking interactivity and personalization options. The participation of health professionals in the development of these apps is low, although it is narrowly related to better quality.

Objective: To design a mobile app based on the needs of the onco-hematological patient receiving oral antineoplastic agents. Methods: A multidisciplinary working group (pharmacy–oncology–hematology) was created to design the app. The study was developed in three phases: first, we analyzed the features of patients receiving oral antineoplastic agents. We then analyzed available apps for cancer patients. Finally, we designed the app's functionalities. Results: We included 51 patients with middle-advanced age (68.7 years (SD=10.7)). They were polymedicated (mean: 5.3 (SD = 2.7), with numerous drug–drug interactions and adverse effects (all patients presented adverse effects). We then analyzed 166 apps. Most apps had more than one use, the most frequent being information (39.8%) and diagnosis (38.6%). Ten apps (6%) were for registering and monitoring treatment and adverse effects. Almost half of the apps (48.8%) were developed by healthcare organizations. Finally, we designed an app (e-OncoSalud®) with the following functionalities: (a) agenda; (b) treatment and drug interactions checker; (c) continuous recording of self-controls (weight, blood pressure, general condition) and adverse effects. The management of the adverse effects are based on an algorithm which provides different recommendations according to the adverse effects severity; (d) patient–pharmacist messaging in real-time; (e) education. Conclusions: After analysis of the main problems affecting these patients and the needs not covered by the existing apps, we designed e-OncoSalud®. It integrates relevant information about their treatment, focused on drug interactions identification and the prevention, and management of adverse effects.