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 Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn.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: Mobile phone and tablets are increasingly being integrated in the daily life of many people around the word. mHealth apps offer appealing possibilities to optimize health systems, to improve care and health promotion, and to reduce health disparities. However, health care apps seem to be underutilized after being download. Objective: The aim of this paper is to better understand peoples’ perceptions, beliefs and experience regarding mHealth app as well as whether or not they value it. Methods: A systematic literature review of qualitative research articles relating to the perception of patients regarding mHealth published in English between January 2013 and June 2018 was undertaken. Data extracted from the articles were synthesized using the meta-ethnography framework and interpretive method. Results: 354 articles were selected for screening, and 44 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most of the articles extracted studied populations of developed nations, were published in the last two years, and most of the apps evaluated were tailored for chronic diseases. Our analysis extract benefits and challenges/critiques of using mHealth apps in the patients’ perspectives. The benefits can be categorized into two themes (engaging patient in healthcare and increasing patient empowerment) while the challenges or critiques have four components to it (trustworthiness, appropriateness, personalization, accessibility). Conclusions: Although many patients perceived mHealth apps as a useful and complementary tool, major problems regarding the optimal use of mHealth technologies include tailored design, cost, validity of information, and security and privacy issues. Many of the challenges can be lifted if there were more support from health providers. Additionally, standards could be implemented to ensure that applications are providing accurate and evidence-based information to patients.

Background: Mobile health (mHealth) apps are a potential means of empowering patients, especially in the case of multimorbidity, which complicates patients’ care needs. Previous studies have shown that general practitioners (GPs) have both expectations and concerns regarding patients’ use of mHealth apps that could impact their willingness to recommend the apps to patients. Objective: The aim of this qualitative study is to investigate French GPs’ attitudes toward the prescription of mHealth apps or devices aimed toward patients by analyzing GPs’ perceptions and expectations of mHealth technologies. Methods: A total of 36 GPs were interviewed individually (n=20) or in a discussion group (n=16). All participants were in private practice. A qualitative analysis of each interview and focus group was conducted using grounded theory analysis. Results: Considering the value assigned to mHealth apps by participants and their willingness or resistance to prescribe them, 3 groups were defined based on the attitudes or positions adopted by GPs: digital engagement (favorable attitude; mHealth apps are perceived as additional resources and complementary tools that facilitate the medical work, the follow-up care, and the monitoring of patients; and apps increase patients’ compliance and empowerment); patient protection (related to the management of patient care and fear of risks for patients, concerns about patient data privacy and security, doubt about the usefulness for empowering patients, standardization of the medical decision process, overmedicalization, risks for individual freedom, and increasing social inequalities in health); doctor protection (fear of additional tasks and burden, doubt about the actionability of patient-gathered health data, risk for medical liability, dehumanization of the patient-doctor relationship, fear of increased drug prescription, and commodification of patient data). Conclusions: A deep understanding of both the expectations and fears of GPs is essential to motivate them to recommend mHealth apps to their patients. The results of this study show the need to provide appropriate education and training to enhance GPs’ digital skills. Certification of the apps by an independent authority should be encouraged to reassure physicians about ethical and data security issues. Our results highlight the need to overcome technical issues such as interoperability between data collection and medical records to limit the disruption of medical work because of data flow.

Background: Palliative care is often underutilized or initiated late in the course of life-threatening illness. Randomized clinical Early Palliative Care (EPC) trials provide an opportunity for changing oncologists' perceptions of palliative care and their attitudes to referring patients to palliative care services. Aim: To describe French oncologists' perceptions of EPC and their effects on referral practices before a clinical EPC trial was launched. Design: A qualitative study involving semistructured face-to-face interviews. The data were analyzed using the Grounded Theory coding method. Setting/Participants: Thirteen oncologists and 19 palliative care specialists (PCSs) working at 10 hospitals all over France were interviewed. Most of them were involved in clinical EPC trials. Results: The findings suggest that referral to PCSs shortly after the diagnosis of advanced cancer increases the terminological barriers, induces avoidance patterns, and makes early disclosure of poor prognosis harder for oncologists. This situation is attributable to the widespread idea that palliative care means terminal care. In addition, the fact that the EPC concept is poorly understood increases the confusion between EPC and supportive care. Conclusion: Defining the EPC concept more clearly and explaining to health professionals and patients what EPC consists of and what role it is intended to play, and the potential benefits of palliative care services could help to overcome the wording barriers rooted in the traditional picture of palliative care. In addition, training French oncologists how to disclose “bad news” could help them cope with the emotional issues involved in referring patients to specialized palliative care.

Background: The field of mobile health (mHealth) is constantly expanding. Integrating mHealth apps and devices in clinical practice is a major and complex challenge. General practitioners (GPs) are an essential link in a patient’s care pathway. As they are patients’ preferred health care intermediaries, GPs play an important role in supporting patients’ transition to mHealth. Objective: This study aims to identify the factors associated with the willingness of French GPs to prescribe mHealth apps and devices to their patients. Methods: This study was part of the ApiAppS project whose overall objective was to help remove barriers GPs face when prescribing mHealth apps and devices by developing a custom-built platform to aid them. The study included GPs recruited from the general practice department of several medical faculties in France (Lyon, Nice, and Rouen) and mailing lists of academic GPs, health care professional associations, and social and professional networks. Participants were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire that collected data on various sociodemographic variables, indicators of their involvement in continued education programs and the amount of time they dedicated to promoting healthy behaviors during patient consultations, and indicators characterizing their patient population. Data on their perceptions of mHealth apps and devices were also collected. Finally, the questionnaire included items to measure GPs’ acceptability of prescribing mHealth apps and devices for several health-related dimensions. Results: Of the 174 GPs, 129 (74.1%) declared their willingness to prescribe mHealth apps and devices to their patients. In multivariate analysis, involvement in continued education programs (odds ratio [OR] 6.17, 95% CI 1.52-28.72), a better patient base command of the French language (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.13-1.88), GP-perceived benefits of mHealth apps and devices for both patients and their medical practice and GP-perceived drivers for mHealth apps and device implementation in their medical practice (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07), and validation of mHealth apps and devices through randomized clinical trials (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04) were all associated with GPs’ willingness to prescribe mHealth apps and devices. In contrast, older GPs (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.98), female GPs (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.69), and those who perceived risks for the patient or their medical practice (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.99) were less inclined to prescribe mHealth apps and devices. Conclusions: mHealth apps and devices were generally seen by GPs as useful in general medicine and were, for the most part, favorable to prescribing them. Their full integration in general medicine will be conditioned by the need for conclusive certification, transparency (reliable and precise data concerning mHealth app and device methods of construction and clinical validation), software aids to assist GPs prescribe them, and dedicated training programs.