Objectives: Despite the growing use of mobile health (mHealth), certain barriers seem to be hindering the use of mHealth applications in healthcare. This article presents a systematic review of the literature on barriers associated with mHealth reported by healthcare professionals.Methods: This systematic review was carried out to identify studies published from January 2015 to December 2019 by searching four electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar). Studies were included if they reported perceived barriers to the adoption of mHealth from healthcare providers’ perspectives. Content analysis and categorization of barriers were performed based on a focus group discussion that explored researchers’ knowledge and experiences.Results: Among the 273 papers retrieved through the search strategy, 18 works were selected and 18 barriers were identified. The relevant barriers were categorized into three main groups: technical, individual, and healthcare system. Security and privacy concerns from the category of technical barriers, knowledge and limited literacy from the category of individual barriers, and economic and financial factors from the category of healthcare system barriers were chosen as three of the most important challenges related to the adoption of mHealth described in the included publications.Conclusions: mHealth adoption is a complex and multi-dimensional process that is widely implemented to increase access to healthcare services. However, it is influenced by various factors and barriers. Understanding the barriers to adoption of mHealth applications among providers, and engaging them in the adoption process will be important for the successful deployment of these applications.

Introduction: Musculoskeletal disorders are one of the most common causes of physical disability. The rehabilitation process after musculoskeletal disorders is long and tedious, and patients are not motivated to follow rehabilitation protocols. Therefore, new systems must be used to increase patient motivation. Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies can be used in this regard. In developing such systems, various technologies and methods of movement recognition are used; therefore, this study aims to summarize the technical aspects of using VR/AR in rehabilitation and evaluate and discuss efficient methods of investigating studies using the Statement of Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI).Methods: Search in four scientific databases was done systematically based on PRISMA through online search engines from inception to June 2021. These databases include Medline (PubMed), Scopus, IEEE, and Web of Science. An updated search was also conducted on 17 December 2021. The research used keywords and MeSH terms associated with VR/AR, musculoskeletal disorder, and rehabilitation. Selected articles were evaluated qualitatively using the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) statement.Results: A total of 2343 articles were found, and 20 studies were included. We found that 11 (55%) studies used Kinect technology as input tools, and 15 (75%) studies have described the techniques used to analyze human movements, such as dynamic time warping (DTW) and support vector machines (SVM). In 10 (50%) studies, the Unity game engine was used for visualization. In 8 studies (40%), usability was assessed, and high usability was reported. Similarly, the results of the review of studies according to the StaRI checklist showed poor reporting in the title and discussion of the studies.Conclusions: We found that academic studies did not describe the technical aspects of rehabilitation systems. Therefore, a good description of the technical aspects of the system in such studies should be considered to provide repeatability and generalizability of these systems for investigations by other researchers.

Background and aims: Patients after transplantation need medical management for the rest of their lives, and self‐management seems to lead to greater adherence to medical standards, improve early physical changes, and increase patient empowerment. The main objective of this article is to systematic review of the consideration to mobile health applications (m‐Health apps) used in transplantation.Methods: A systematic search was conducted MEDLINE (through PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, and Science Direct from inception to November 2020. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) statement was used in this study. Comprehensive research was carried out using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms associated with m‐Health, empowerment, self‐management, and transplantation. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, assessed full‐text articles, and extracted data from articles that met inclusion criteria. Eligible studies were original research articles that included posttransplant care and mobile phone‐based applications to support self‐management and self‐care. Also, thesis, book chapters, letters to editors, short briefs, reports, technical reports, book reviews, systematic reviews, or meta‐analysis were excluded.Results: We divided all the reviewed articles into four categories, self‐management (medication adherence, adherence to medical regimen, and remote monitoring), evaluation, interaction, and interface; 37.5% of the studies were focused on lung transplantation. In 56.25% of the studies, medication adherence was considered because one of the main reasons for the rejection and graft loss is stated medication nonadherence. Also, 62.5% of the studies demonstrated that the use of m‐health improved medication adherence and self‐management in transplantation.Conclusions: The use of m‐Health apps interventions to self‐management after transplantation has shown promising feasibility and acceptability, and there is modest evidence to support the efficacy of these interventions. We found that m‐Health solutions can help the patient in self‐management in many ways after transplantation.

Introduction: Mental health problems as a consequence of cancer lower the quality of life of cancer patients. Despite increasing studies of breast cancer‐focused mobile health applications (m‐Health apps), there is less research on breast cancer patients' quality of life or well‐being. The purpose of this study is to develop and evaluate the usability and quality of an educational m‐Health app aimed at improving the resilience of breast cancer in women.Methods: This study was conducted in four phases. It included extracting the requirements of the app through the nominal group technique. Based on these results, an m‐Health app was developed and evaluated in terms of usability and quality by two scales, System Usability Scale and Mobile App Rating Scale questionnaires, respectively. Finally, the role of patients' age and educational backgrounds in the use of the app was assessed. The relationship between learnability and usability of the app was measured by the T‐Test.Results: The app was developed with three user interfaces. Its usability developed from the patient's point of view scored a remarkable score of 83.20 with a 95% confidence interval. This value was too indicative of high satisfaction with the usefulness and the possibility of recommending it to other cancer survivors. The results of the quality evaluation from an expert's point of view showed that this app had good functionality. Evaluation of the role of demographic information in the use of the app showed that it can be used for all age groups with different levels of education. The app did not differ significantly between learnability and usability.Conclusion: The development of m‐Health apps, based on usability principles that are suitable for all age groups with different levels of education, is welcomed by cancer patients.