We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Cell phones and information technology can be allies in the care of chronic diseases. Despite the wide availability of mobile device applications (apps), many offered by industry and providers, questions remain about the real efficacy of these technologies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mobile device apps designed for use by outpatients in treatment for asthma and describe its main characteristics and functionalities.
Methods
A systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was conducted. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the adoption of mobile apps on Android or iOS systems compared to the usual care, published in the last five years. Asthma control rate was defined as the primary outcome, and visits to emergency departments, hospitalizations and adherence to pharmacological treatment were secondary outcomes.
Results
Four RCTs (n = 415) met the inclusion criteria, two involving children and adults, and two only adults. Methodological quality was low to moderate. Common functionalities were asthma action plans, registration of the usual treatment, symptom diaries and educational alerts. Results were heterogeneous with respect to all outcomes evaluated. Study dropouts and lack of follow-up were frequent.
Conclusions
The clinical utility of mobile apps for asthma was evaluated in a few randomized studies; more data are necessary to establish the value of these technologies for asthma control.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.