Background: Mobile-health applications are revolutionising the way healthcare is being delivered. However, current research focusses on apps aimed at monitoring of conditions rather than the prevention of disease. Healthcare apps that prevent disease can be classified as lifestyle apps (LAs) and encompass mindfulness, exercise, and diet apps. In order for widespread implementation of these apps, perspectives of the user must be taken into consideration. Therefore, this systematic literature review identifies the barriers and facilitators to the use of LAs from a user’s perspective. Objective: To both identify the facilitators to the use of LAs from a user perspective as well as identify the barriers to the use of LAs from a user perspective. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Qualitative articles focussed on a healthy non-diseased population were obtained. Two independent researchers coded the articles, and themes were identified. Results: Our results found that there were five barriers and five facilitators to app use. The facilitators included (1) motivational aspects to the user, (2) effective marketing and communication, (3) user-centred design and content, (4) humanising technology, and (5) accessibility. The five barriers identified were (1) a non-conducive, (2) poor marketing and branding, (3) controlling and invasive, (4) disengaging content, and (5) inaccessibility. Conclusions: By overcoming the barriers of LAs and encouraging the facilitators found, users are more likely to engage with this method of health promotion. Future research must be conducted on the barriers and facilitators to development and distribution of apps in order for LAs to be implemented in widespread healthcare practice.

Background: Current UK National Health Service (NHS) guidelines recommend appendicectomy as gold standard treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. However, an alternative non-surgical management involves administrating antibiotic-only therapy with significantly lower costs. Therefore, a UK-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) was performed to compare appendicectomy with an antibiotic-only treatment from an NHS perspective. Methods: This economic evaluation modelled health-outcome data using the ACTUAA (2021) prospective multicentre trial. The non-randomised control trial followed 318 patients given either antibiotic therapy or appendicectomy, with quality of life (QOL) assessed using the SF-12 questionnaires administered 1-year post-treatment. A CUA was conducted over a 1-year time horizon, measuring benefits in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs in pound sterling using a propensity score-matched approach to control for selection based on observable factors. Results: The CUA produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of −GBP 23,278.51 (−EUR 27,227.80) per QALY. Therefore, for each QALY gained using antibiotic-only treatment instead of appendicectomy, an extra GBP 23,278.51 was saved. Additionally, two sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for post-operative or post-treatment complications. The antibiotic-only option remained dominant in both scenarios. Conclusion: While the results do not rely on a randomized sample, the analysis based on a 1-year follow-up suggested that antibiotics were largely more cost-effective than appendicectomy and led to improved QOL outcomes for patients. The ICER value of −GBP 23,278.51 demonstrates that the NHS must give further consideration to the current gold standard treatment in acute uncomplicated appendicitis.