Injury Prevention And Treatment In Your pocket?! Do Apps Adhere To The Evidence.
|
Evert Verhagen, Department of Pubic and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University medical center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands Track: Research Presentation Topic: Mobile & Tablet Health Applications Presentation Type: Poster presentation Submission Type: Single Presentation Last modified: 2012-06-20 |
If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL). |
Abstract
Background
It has been well described that physical activity and sports are beneficial for each individual’s health. However, injuries are unwanted and in most cases unnecessary, side effects of such healthy activities. There is an abundance of sports medicine literature on effective rehabilitation protocols and preventive programs for a variety of injuries in various sports. In line with trends in other areas of medicine, mHealth in relation to sports medicine is gaining momentum with a number of apps being presented for different platforms. However, it remains unknown whether these apps are based upon best-evidence or merely preach best-practice.
Objective
The aim of this study was to review and summarize the content of available sports injury prevention and sports injury rehabilitation apps.
Methods
The US iTunes store was searched (February 20, 2012) within the categories ‘health & fitness’, ‘sports’, and ‘ medical’ for apps on injury prevention and rehabilitation using the keywords ‘injury’, ‘prevention’, ‘treatment’, and ‘rehabilitation’. Information on content , user rating, and price was extracted from iTunes. Apps were categorized by goal (prevention versus rehabilitation) and body region. For each category Cochrane reviews were searched to provide information on best evidence. If no Cochrane reviews were available other systematic reviews were sought, followed by individual randomized controlled trials or position statements if necessary. App content was summarized and correlated against the ascertained best evidence.
Results
The search in iTunes yielded 1,023 iPhone apps and 299 iPad apps across all app-categories. A total of, respectively, 629 and 195 were categorized within the app-categories of interest. Only 27 unique apps specifically dealt with preventions of sports and physical activity related injury, whereas this number was 19 for the rehabilitation of sports and physical activity related injury. An additional 20 and 34 applications indirectly contained information on, respectively, prevention and rehabilitation. Apps dealt mostly with running injury (n=12), ankle injuries (n=8), and tendon injuries (n=7).
While only 4 applications specifically mentioned the containment of scientific evidence, about 60% of all reviewed apps contained best available evidence. While there was no specific mentioning of the uptake of evidence it remains elusive whether the app authors included evidence on purpose, or whether apps were built around the authors best -practice, coincidentally correlating to best evidence. In contrast, about 40% of all reviewed apps did not contain best available scientific evidence and in some cases even contained messages contrary to the evidence. The latter is of special concern while these apps are used by lay-persons seeking information and help for a (sports related) medical issue.
Conclusion
Although the number of apps targeting sports and physical activity related injuries is low, many available apps have insufficient evidence-based content. While the number of apps on these topics is bound to grow in the near future, research is needed to rate, develop, improve and evaluate these apps.
It has been well described that physical activity and sports are beneficial for each individual’s health. However, injuries are unwanted and in most cases unnecessary, side effects of such healthy activities. There is an abundance of sports medicine literature on effective rehabilitation protocols and preventive programs for a variety of injuries in various sports. In line with trends in other areas of medicine, mHealth in relation to sports medicine is gaining momentum with a number of apps being presented for different platforms. However, it remains unknown whether these apps are based upon best-evidence or merely preach best-practice.
Objective
The aim of this study was to review and summarize the content of available sports injury prevention and sports injury rehabilitation apps.
Methods
The US iTunes store was searched (February 20, 2012) within the categories ‘health & fitness’, ‘sports’, and ‘ medical’ for apps on injury prevention and rehabilitation using the keywords ‘injury’, ‘prevention’, ‘treatment’, and ‘rehabilitation’. Information on content , user rating, and price was extracted from iTunes. Apps were categorized by goal (prevention versus rehabilitation) and body region. For each category Cochrane reviews were searched to provide information on best evidence. If no Cochrane reviews were available other systematic reviews were sought, followed by individual randomized controlled trials or position statements if necessary. App content was summarized and correlated against the ascertained best evidence.
Results
The search in iTunes yielded 1,023 iPhone apps and 299 iPad apps across all app-categories. A total of, respectively, 629 and 195 were categorized within the app-categories of interest. Only 27 unique apps specifically dealt with preventions of sports and physical activity related injury, whereas this number was 19 for the rehabilitation of sports and physical activity related injury. An additional 20 and 34 applications indirectly contained information on, respectively, prevention and rehabilitation. Apps dealt mostly with running injury (n=12), ankle injuries (n=8), and tendon injuries (n=7).
While only 4 applications specifically mentioned the containment of scientific evidence, about 60% of all reviewed apps contained best available evidence. While there was no specific mentioning of the uptake of evidence it remains elusive whether the app authors included evidence on purpose, or whether apps were built around the authors best -practice, coincidentally correlating to best evidence. In contrast, about 40% of all reviewed apps did not contain best available scientific evidence and in some cases even contained messages contrary to the evidence. The latter is of special concern while these apps are used by lay-persons seeking information and help for a (sports related) medical issue.
Conclusion
Although the number of apps targeting sports and physical activity related injuries is low, many available apps have insufficient evidence-based content. While the number of apps on these topics is bound to grow in the near future, research is needed to rate, develop, improve and evaluate these apps.
Add this presentation to MySchedule
MySchedule allows you to keep track of presentations from upcoming Medicine 2.0 conferences that you are interested in seeing. The list of presentations already added to MySchedule is available here.
comments powered by Disqus
Medicine 2.0® is happy to support and promote other conferences and workshops in this area. Contact us to produce and promote your conference or workshop under this label and in this event series. In addition, we are always looking for hosts of future World Congresses.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.