Systematic Review of Commercially Available Mobile Phone Applications for Prostate Cancer Education

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer among all men and the second most common cause of death. To ameliorate the burden of prostate cancer, there is a critical need to identify strategies for providing men with information about prostate cancer screening and the importance of informed decision making. With mobile phones becoming more ubiquitous, many individuals are adopting their phones as sources for health information. The objective of this systematic review is to identify and evaluate commercially available apps for promoting informed prostate cancer screening decisions. Two keywords “prostate cancer screening” and “prostate cancer” were entered into the search engines of Google and iOS app stores in May 2017. Evaluations were conducted on apps’ (a) quality, (b) grade-level readability, (c) cultural sensitivity, and (d) usability heuristics. None of the 14 apps meeting the inclusion criteria contained the full breadth of information covered in the 2016 American Cancer Society’s Prostate Cancer Prevention and Early Detection Guidelines, but over half were inclusive of topics consistent with these guidelines. Most apps’ readability was higher than an eighth-grade reading level. Most apps were also not framed and had a neutral tone. Only four apps met most criteria for being culturally sensitive to African Americans. Usability among apps was variable, but some contained major usability concerns. Recommendations for improving educational apps for prostate cancer screening include: disseminating evidence-based information; using culturally sensitive language; knowing the implications of the one and framing of content; making apps interactive; and following common usability principles.

The Impact of Mobile Health on Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

“…17 Five studies (22%) reported users' satisfaction of using the smartphone app. 9,13,[28][29][30] According to Pereira-Azevedo et al, 27 the mobile application has been designed to not only give patients support but also to help healthcare specialists in the process of the decision-making. The application seems to be easy to work with; hence, it is very useful in the everyday care of patients.…”

Do prostate cancer-related mobile phone apps have a role in contemporary prostate cancer management? A systematic review by EAU young academic urologists (YAU) urotechnology group

“…Of these, one paper was excluded as it was not relevant and a further five papers were removed as they were based on unpublished or unreleased apps (not available in online stores). This left 13 papers for inclusion in our final review [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] (Fig. 1).…”

“…Analysed apps using readability studio software, over 10 readability assessments Data specifically provided on prostate cancer apps 'Cancer Conditions and Treatments' app was found to have a mean reading score of 10.2 (mean of all apps reviewed was between 9.0 and 14.6), therefore although the reading level is that of GCSE-level, it is more accessible than many of the other apps reviewed 'itsaMANTHING' app had a grade-level readability of 9.1 'Mens Health Facts And Tips' app was found to have a mean reading score of 10.6, therefore although the reading level is between GCSE and college-level, it is more accessible than many of the other apps reviewed 'Prostate Cancer' app (by developer 'Focus') had a grade-level readability of 9.5 (GCSE level) Authors stated that the prostate cancer apps (and all others included in the study) had high reading levels that preclude understanding in the average patient [19]. The study concluded that the apps included in the study were of high reading levels that were greater than that of the average patient, which might prevent patients from understanding the information they contain.…”

“…Owens et al [19] also explored the quality of content provided by 14 PCAs. This was based upon accuracy, breadth, tone/framing and cultural sensitivity of the app's content.…”

“…The overall rating of the '14 PCAs for cultural sensitivity for African Americans was low. Procee had the best rating for cultural sensitivity [19]. Bohme et al [13] evaluated the quality of apps, using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) and German Cancer Society (GCS) instruments to determine the quality of information contained within the apps for breast, prostate and colorectal cancer.…”