Commercially available mobile phone headache diary apps: a systematic review

Amos S Hundert, Anna Huguet, Patrick J McGrath, Jennifer N Stinson, Mike Wheaton, Amos S Hundert, Anna Huguet, Patrick J McGrath, Jennifer N Stinson, Mike Wheaton

Abstract

Background: Headache diaries are often used by headache sufferers to self-monitor headaches. With advances in mobile technology, mobile electronic diary apps are becoming increasingly common.

Objective: This review aims to identify and evaluate all commercially available mobile headache diary apps for the two most popular mobile phone platforms, iOS and Android.

Methods: The authors developed a priori a set of 7 criteria that define an ideal headache diary app intended to help headache sufferers better understand and manage their headaches, while providing relevant data to health professionals. The app criteria were intended as minimum requirements for an acceptable headache diary app that could be prescribed by health care professionals. Each app was evaluated and scored against each criterion.

Results: Of the 38 apps identified, none of the apps met all 7 app criteria. The 3 highest scoring apps, meeting 5 of the app criteria, were iHeadache (developed by Better QOL), ecoHeadache (developed by ecoTouchMedia), and Headache Diary Pro (developed by Froggyware). Only 18% of the apps were created with scientific or clinical headache expertise and none of the apps reported on psychometric properties.

Conclusions: Despite the growing market and demand, there is a concerning lack of scientific expertise and evidence base associated with headache diary apps.

Keywords: apps; diary; headache; mHealth; mobile phone; review; smartphone; technology.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant #97981) to develop an Internet-based CBT intervention for adolescents and young adults with headaches, called myWHI.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The home screen of iHeadache (left), ecoHeadache (middle), and Headache Diary Pro (right).

References

    1. Stovner LJ, Hagen K, Jensen R, Katsarava Z, Lipton R, Scher A, Steiner T, Zwart JA. The global burden of headache: a documentation of headache prevalence and disability worldwide. Cephalalgia. 2007 Mar;27(3):193–210. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01288.x.
    1. Smitherman TA, Burch R, Sheikh H, Loder E. The prevalence, impact, and treatment of migraine and severe headaches in the United States: a review of statistics from national surveillance studies. Headache. 2013 Mar;53(3):427–436. doi: 10.1111/head.12074.
    1. World Health Organization . Atlas of Headache Disorders and Resources in the World 2011: A Collaborative Project of World Health Organization and Lifting the Burden. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.
    1. Nappi G, Jensen R, Nappi RE, Sances G, Torelli P, Olesen J. Diaries and calendars for migraine. A review. Cephalalgia. 2006 Aug;26(8):905–916. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2006.01155.x.
    1. Russell MB, Rasmussen BK, Brennum J, Iversen HK, Jensen RA, Olesen J. Presentation of a new instrument: the diagnostic headache diary. Cephalalgia. 1992 Dec;12(6):369–374.
    1. Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR. Patient compliance with paper and electronic diaries. Control Clin Trials. 2003 Apr;24(2):182–199.
    1. Allena M, Cuzzoni MG, Tassorelli C, Nappi G, Antonaci F. An electronic diary on a palm device for headache monitoring: a preliminary experience. J Headache Pain. 2012 Oct;13(7):537–541. doi: 10.1007/s10194-012-0473-2.
    1. Stinson JN, Huguet A, McGrath P, Rosenbloom B, Soobiah C, White M, Coburn G. A qualitative review of the psychometric properties and feasibility of electronic headache diaries for children and adults: where we are and where we need to go. Pain Res Manag. 2013 Jun;18(3):142–152.
    1. Jamison RN, Raymond SA, Levine JG, Slawsby EA, Nedeljkovic SS, Katz NP. Electronic diaries for monitoring chronic pain: 1-year validation study. Pain. 2001 Apr;91(3):277–285.
    1. Palermo TM, Valenzuela D, Stork PP. A randomized trial of electronic versus paper pain diaries in children: impact on compliance, accuracy, and acceptability. Pain. 2004 Feb;107(3):213–219.
    1. Jahns RG Research2Guidance. 2010. [2014-03-14]. 500m people will be using healthcare mobile applications in 2015
    1. Research2Guidance. 2013. [2014-03-14]. Mobile health market report 2013-2017: the commercialization of mHealth applications
    1. eMarketer. 2014. [2014-07-07]. Smartphone users worldwide will total 1.75 billion in 2014: mobile users pick up smartphones as they become more affordable, 3G and 4G networks advance .
    1. eMarketer. 2014. [2014-07-07]. Worldwide smartphone usage to grow 25% in 2014: nine countries to surpass 50% smartphone penetration this year .
    1. Bastawrous A, Armstrong MJ. Mobile health use in low- and high-income countries: an overview of the peer-reviewed literature. J R Soc Med. 2013 Apr;106(4):130–142. doi: 10.1177/0141076812472620.
    1. Rosser BA, Eccleston C. Smartphone applications for pain management. J Telemed Telecare. 2011 Sep;17(6):308–312. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2011.101102.
    1. International Data Corporation. 2013. [2014-03-14]. Android pushes past 80% market share while Windows phone shipments leap 156.0% year over year in the third quarter, according to IDC .
    1. comScore. 2013. [2014-03-14]. comScore reports September 2013 U.S. smartphone subscriber market share .
    1. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960 Apr;20(1):37–46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159–174.
    1. Nielsen J. Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen J, Mack RP, editors. Usability Inspection Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1994.
    1. Virzi RA, Sorce JF, Herbert LB. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 1993. A comparison of three usability evaluation methods: heuristic, think-aloud, and performance testing .
    1. Jaspers MW. A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: methodological aspects and empirical evidence. Int J Med Inform. 2009 May;78(5):340–353. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.10.002.
    1. McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods. 1996 Mar;1(1):30–46. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30.
    1. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994 Dec;6(4):284–290. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.
    1. Stockwell MS, Kharbanda EO, Martinez RA, Lara M, Vawdrey D, Natarajan K, Rickert VI. Text4Health: impact of text message reminder-recalls for pediatric and adolescent immunizations. Am J Public Health. 2012 Feb;102(2):e15–21. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300331.
    1. Clarke G, Eubanks D, Reid E, Kelleher C, O'Connor E, DeBar LL, Lynch F, Nunley S, Gullion C. Overcoming Depression on the Internet (ODIN) (2): a randomized trial of a self-help depression skills program with reminders. J Med Internet Res. 2005 Jun;7(2):e16. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.2.e16.
    1. National Health Service. 2013. [2014-03-15]. Health Apps Library
    1. Food and Drug Administration. 2013. [2014-03-15]. Mobile medical applications: guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff .
    1. Huguet A, Stinson J, Mackay B, Watters C, Tougas M, White M, McGrath PJ. Bringing psychosocial support to headache sufferers using information and communication technology: lessons learned from asking potential users what they want. Pain Res Manag. 2014 Feb;19(1):e1–8.
    1. Huguet A. WHI diary app: helping young people to self-monitor their recurrent headaches. 9th International Symposium on Pediatric Pain; Jun 17-20, 2013; Stockholm, Sweden. 2013. Jun,
    1. Breton ER, Fuemmeler BF, Abroms LC. Weight loss-there is an app for that! But does it adhere to evidence-informed practices? Transl Behav Med. 2011 Dec;1(4):523–529. doi: 10.1007/s13142-011-0076-5.
    1. Rodrigues MA, Visvanathan A, Murchison JT, Brady RR. Radiology smartphone applications; current provision and cautions. Insights Imaging. 2013 Oct;4(5):555–562. doi: 10.1007/s13244-013-0274-4.
    1. Carter MC, Burley VJ, Nykjaer C, Cade JE. Adherence to a smartphone application for weight loss compared to website and paper diary: pilot randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Apr;15(4):e32. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2283.
    1. Marciel KK, Saiman L, Quittell LM, Dawkins K, Quittner AL. Cell phone intervention to improve adherence: cystic fibrosis care team, patient, and parent perspectives. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2010 Feb;45(2):157–164. doi: 10.1002/ppul.21164.
    1. Charland A, Leroux B. Mobile application development: web vs. native. Commun ACM. 2011 May;54(5):49–53. doi: 10.1145/1941487.1941504.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren