ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2026
Patient and Clinician Attitudes Toward Mobile Health Apps: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Mobile health (mHealth) apps are widely available, and some have proven safe and effective for management of specific chronic conditions. Despite a high degree of interest, the potential of these technologies has yet to be realized. Patient and clinician attitudes are key factors that influence the adoption of mHealth apps but remain poorly understood, particularly in the United States. Objective: This study aimed to identify both patient and clinician attitudes that can influence recommending and adopting mHealth apps. Methods: Using well-established technology adoption and implementation science frameworks, this study included a deductive content analysis using a rapid qualitative analytic method. Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients and clinicians to identify technical and material, social and personal, and policy and organizational factors that can influence the recommendation or adoption of mHealth apps. The interviews and data analysis were performed between September 2023 and August 2024. Results: Participants included 20 clinicians (n=12, 60% general internists) with a mean time in practice of 17 (SD 11.6) years, and 28 patients with a mean age of 59 (SD 12.1) years. A total of 7 categories related to patients' and clinicians' attitudes toward mHealth apps emerged: (1) apps as tools to improve health by extending care, (2) the role of apps in enhancing the patient-clinician relationship, (3) the need for simplicity and efficiency in app design, (4) the influence of prior experience with mHealth apps, (5) comfort with technology, (6) recommendations from trusted sources, and (7) education and hands-on experience. Although similar factors were considered by patients and clinicians, their views about older adults' interest and ability to use mHealth apps differed. Conclusions: Understanding patient and clinician views about mHealth apps provides critical insights for developing approaches to facilitate their use. These findings suggest patients and clinicians share similar views about the benefits of mHealth apps. Nonetheless, clinicians' perceptions about older patients' interest and ability to use mHealth apps may negatively impact recommendation of mHealth apps and subsequent adoption by older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.