Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the state of smartphone applications for cancer intended for the general public with a focus on interactive features, content sources, and application developer affiliations. The level of health provider involvement in screening or appraising application content was also assessed.Methods: A total of 123 apps were identified for analysis from two major mobile application marketplaces (Apple iTunes ¼ 40; Google Play ¼ 83). Application characteristics were collected, analyzed, and reported. These included the mobile platform, cost, application developer affiliation, date of last update, purpose of application, content sources, and interactive features.Results: In the study sample, 50% of the applications focused on general information for cancer (62/123). Next, this was followed by applications for breast cancer (15%, 19/123) and skin cancer (7%, 8/123). Only 10% of application descriptions (12/123) identified sources for application content. Interactive features included the ability to monitor symptoms, side effects, treatments, and chronic pain (20%, 25/123). Only 3% of the applications (4/123) stated content had been evaluated by health providers.Conclusions: This study contributes an updated analysis of applications for cancer available in the digital health marketplace. The findings have implications for information quality and supportive resources for cancer care. More transparent information about content sources, organizational affiliations, and level of health provider oversight in screening application content is warranted. Recommendations for improving the quality of cancer applications are also offered.

Social media (SM) platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and online cancer support groups are an emerging source of social support. However, oncology care professionals may be unfamiliar with how patients use SM related to their cancer diagnosis. SM can be potentially beneficial by providing an avenue for patient engagement and empowerment, increasing psychosocial and informational support, strengthening patient–physician relationships, and relaying opportunities for clinical and research study participation. Conversely, it can spread misinformation, overwhelm with information overload, violate privacy, and expose users to financial exploitation. The purpose of this article is to describe five potential benefits and five potential drawbacks patients may experience while using SM and to encourage oncologists to become aware of these, to guide patients in using SM to their benefit. This review also provides specific care practice behaviors that oncologists can apply during care delivery to guide patients’ SM use, to help avoid the potential drawbacks and harness the potential benefits.

No abstract